Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

International Broadband Data Report

Download Options

Released: August 21, 2012

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554



In the Matter of
)


)

International Comparison Requirements Pursuant
)
IB Docket No. 10-171
to the Broadband Data Improvement Act
)
GN Docket 11-121

)
International Broadband Data Report
)

THIRD REPORT


Adopted: August 13, 2012


Released: August 21, 2012


By the Chief, International Bureau:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1. This is the Commission’s third annual International Broadband Data Report (IBDR or
Report). The IBDR is required by the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA) and provides
comparative international information on broadband services.1 Through the presentation of this data, we
have the opportunity to evaluate the United States’ rates of broadband adoption, speeds, and prices in
comparison to the international community. International data can serve as useful benchmarks for
progress in fixed and mobile broadband accessibility.
2. In the past year, both fixed and mobile broadband providers have made significant progress in
their efforts to expand broadband networks and improve service quality. As noted in the Eighth 706
Report
released today, the market is responding to the needs of Americans for increased broadband
capabilities.2 In 2011, U.S. investment in wired and wireless network infrastructure rose 24%.3 Some
recent trends show that providers are offering higher speeds, more data under their usage limits, and more
advanced technology in both fixed and mobile broadband. For example, cable operators have increased
their deployment of DOCSIS 3.0-based data networks, which are capable of providing 100 megabits per
second or faster (Mbps) speeds. In the last three years, the percentage of households passed by DOCSIS
3.0 broadband infrastructure has risen from 20% to 82%.4 Advances in broadband technology and
initiatives to promote greater deployment and adoption of broadband services have led to broadband-
enabled innovation in other fields such as health care, education, and energy efficiency. Consumers all
over the world are using applications and services created by U.S. companies, including social networks,
search engines, and e-commerce. Although the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development) has not updated its cable modem coverage data since 2008, it ranked the United States first

1 See 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). In this report we use the term “broadband” synonymously with “advanced
telecommunications capability.” See generally Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to
Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications of 1996, as Amended by the
Broadband Data Improvement Act
, GN Docket No. 11-121, Eighth Broadband Progress Report, FCC 12-90 (2012)
(Eighth 706 Report).
2 Eighth 706 Report, at ¶ 6.
3 TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, TIA’S 2012 ICT MARKET REVIEW AND FORECAST 1-3 (2012).
4 NCTA, Industry Data, http://www.ncta.com/Statistics.aspx.


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


out of 28 countries in cable modem coverage, and we have no reason to think that this ranking has
changed.5
3. Wireless providers are deploying new, faster, and more spectrally-efficient technologies for
mobile broadband, known as 4G LTE.6 American consumers have been quick to adopt 4G LTE
technology, securing the United States’ position as the world leader in LTE adoption. In the 15thAnnual
Mobile Wireless Competition Report, the Commission observed that there were no commercial LTE
launches in the United States as of August 2010.7 By the end of 2011 though, U.S. LTE subscribers
numbered 5.6 million, accounting for 64% of the roughly 9 million LTE subscribers worldwide.8
Deloitte predicts that U.S. investment in 4G networks during 2012-2016 could be $25-$53 billion.9
Aggressive LTE network build-out by U.S. providers has been a driving force in customer take-up and we
anticipate that this trend will continue. Analysts anticipate that globally, LTE subscribership will reach at
least 400 million by 2016.10 We will continue to follow global LTE trends for futu
IBDRs
re
.
4. With this progress, the United States has regained its role as a global leader in and around
mobile broadband. More than 80% of smartphones sold globally run on U.S. operating systems, up from
less than 25% three years ago.11 As the first adopters of 4G LTE, the U.S. is the global test bed for
wireless technology and services. In 2011, venture investment in Internet start-ups reached its highest

5 OECD Broadband statistics, Table 3e, Availability of cable modem services (up to 2008), available at
http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadbandandtelecom/44435586.xls">http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadbandandtelecom/44435586.xls. To compile this ranking, the data that the OECD uses
for the United States is current as of the end of 2007. For other countries, the data is current as of as early as 2003
(Korea) and as late as 2008 (United Kingdom).
6 See, e.g., Press Release, Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Network Will Be Available to More then 2/3 of U.S. Population
Starting April 19
, Verizon Wireless (Apr. 17, 2012), http://news.verizonwireless.com/news/2012/04/pr2012-04-
16c.html.
7 Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and Analysis
of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services,
WT
Docket No. 10-133, Fifteenth Report, 26 FCC Rcd 9664, 9706, n. 115 (2011), available at
.http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-103A1.pdf">http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-103A1.pdf.
8 US Remains at Forefront of LTE Service Adoption, TeleGeography (Mar. 15, 2012), available at
http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/03/15/us-remains-at-forefront-of-lte-service-adoption/">http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/03/15/us-remains-at-forefront-of-lte-service-
adoption/ (finding that the United States leads the world in 4G adoption).
9 Deloitte, The impact of 4G technology on commercial interaction, economic growth, and U.S. competitiveness
(Aug. 2011), available at http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/TMT_us_tmt/us_tmt_impactof4g_081911.pdf">http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-
UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/TMT_us_tmt/us_tmt_impactof4g_081911.pdf (noting that analysts
predict investment in 4G wireless networks could amount to between $25 and $53 billion over the next four years,
creating as much as $150 billion in GDP growth and up to 770,000 new jobs).
10 Wireless Subscribers by Region, Telegeography Research, available at
http://www.telegeography.com/products/globalcomms/world-and-regional-totals/wireless-subscribers-by-region/index.html">http://www.telegeography.com/products/globalcomms/world-and-regional-totals/wireless-subscribers-by-
region/index.html (predicting 400 million LTE subscribers worldwide by 2016); Global 4G LTE Usage Expected to
Skyrocket, PC Magazine (July 25, 2012), available athttp://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407612,00.asp"> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407612,00.asp
(noting that Parks Associates predicts 560 million LTE subscribers worldwide by 2016); LTE Connections To Hit
90 Million By Year’s End, 1 Billion By 2017, Techcrunch (May 17, 2012), available at
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/17/report-lte-connections-to-hit-90-million-by-years-end-1-billion-by-2017/">http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/17/report-lte-connections-to-hit-90-million-by-years-end-1-billion-by-2017/.
11 Android, Apple Own 80% of Global Smartphone Market: Microsoft’s Share, 2.2%, PC World (May 24, 2012),
available at
http://www.pcworld.com/article/256155/android_apple_own_80_of_global_smartphone_market_microsofts_share_22.html">http://www.pcworld.com/article/256155/android_apple_own_80_of_global_smartphone_market_microsofts_share_
22.html.
2


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


levels since 2001.12 The apps economy, a $20 billion industry that barely existed five years ago, has
created nearly 500,000 jobs.13
5. The Commission has also adopted a number of major initiatives in the last year to help
increase adoption rates by bringing down major barriers to adoption and utilization – access and
affordability. Last year, the Commission released the USF/ICC Transformation Order, which establishes
the Connect America Fund and transforms the existing high-cost universal service program in order to
speed delivery of broadband to all Americans.14 For the millions of Americans who do not have access to
fixed broadband, implementation of this Order will mean access to the benefits of broadband, such as
long-distance learning options, health information technology, and economic opportunities. For other
Americans, access to broadband is limited by affordability, a lack of digital literacy, and a perception
about the Internet’s usefulness to them.15 Earlier this year, the Commission also released a modernized
Lifeline Order, adopting reforms to the Lifeline program, including the Broadband Pilot Program, which
uses $25 million to increase broadband adoption among low-income Americans.16 Connect2Compete,
which was developed with the cooperation of the private industry last year, also aims to connect low-
income families to low-cost computers, digital literacy training, and low-cost Internet service by targeting
students eligible for free school lunch.17
6. The roll-out of DOCSIS 3.0 and LTE, the Commission’s recent reforms targeting broadband
availability and adoption, and other developments noted above should have a significant impact on
overall broadband speeds and penetration over time, but many of these developments are just beginning to
have an impact. For example, the Commission is just beginning the process of awarding Connect

12 Press Release, Venture Capital Investments Experience Double-Digit Increases in Dollars and Deal Volume in Q2
2012
, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the National Venture Capital Association (July 20, 2012) available at
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/press-releases/2012/2012-q2-moneytree.jhtml">http://www.pwc.com/us/en/press-releases/2012/2012-q2-moneytree.jhtml.
13 Mandel, Dr. Michael, Where the Jobs Are: The App Economy, TechNet (Feb. 7, 2012), available at
http://www.technet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/TechNet-App-Economy-Jobs-Study.pdf">http://www.technet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/TechNet-App-Economy-Jobs-Study.pdf.
14 Connect America Fund; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future; Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for
Local Exchange Carriers; High-Cost Universal Service Support; Developing an Unified Intercarrier Compensation
Regime; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Lifeline and Link-Up; Universal Service Reform—
Mobility Fund
, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, 03-109, GN Docket No. 09-51, CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96-
45, WT Docket No. 10-208, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663
(2011) (USF/ICC Transformation Order), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-
161A1_Rcd.pdf, pets. for review pending sub nom. In re FCC 11-161, No. 11-9900 (10th Cir. filed Dec. 8, 2011);
Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd 17633 (2011); Second Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 4648 (2012);
Third Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 5622 (2012).
15 ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION & NTIA, EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: COMPUTER AND
INTERNET USE AT HOME at vi, 37 (2011) (DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011), available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_computer_and_internet_use_at_home_
11092011.pdf.; see also Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 5; KATHRYN ZICKUHR & AARON
SMITH, PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES 7 (showing that 10 percent of non-Internet users do not use the
Internet because it is too expensive), 8 (finding that 35 percent of dial-up users will not switch to broadband until the
price falls) (2012) (PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES), available at
http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Digital_differences_041312.pdf.
16 Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Lifeline and Link Up; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
Service; Advancing Broadband Availability Through Digital Literacy Training
, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-109, 12-
23, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 12-11 (rel. Feb. 6,
2012) (Lifeline Order).
17 See Press Release, FCC and “Connect to Compete” Broadband Fact Sheet (Nov. 9, 2011), available at
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0510/DOC-310924A1.pdf">http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0510/DOC-310924A1.pdf.
3


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


America funds to promote broadband deployment as this Report is being released. The data in this IBDR
generally dates from several months ago, so early effects of these developments may not yet appear here.
7. As these reforms are implemented, however, and as providers continue their roll out of next
generation services, the data in this report provides a benchmark for the Commission and industry to
measure improvements in adoption, cost, and quality of service. Based on OECD data, the United States
ranks seventh (compared to ninth at the time of the previous report) for wireless (mobile) broadband
penetration on a per capita basis,18 and ranks 15th (similar to Japan, Finland, and Canada) for wired (e.g.,
DSL or cable) broadband penetration on a per capita basis.19 U.S. wired broadband adoption continues to
lag behind such countries as South Korea, the United Kingdom, and Germany, but exceeds adoption rates
in Israel, Australia, and the EU average.20
8. As with past reports, the 38 countries we selected for comparison present a diverse profile of
countries with developed broadband markets, including all 34 OECD countries. Our selection exceeds the
requirement of the BDIA that we review broadband data for 75 communities in 25 countries.21 With
respect to speeds, our review of data on average actual download speeds reported by a sample of
consumers from 38 countries (including the United States and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
of the People’s Republic of China), finds that the United States ranks 24th in average actual speeds
purchased and experienced by consumers. The United States ranks 17th when based on a stratified
sampling technique using weighted average actual download speed.22 We also present data comparing
the speeds in select cities around the world.
9. As a result of efforts to improve data collection, this third Report also, for the first time, takes
a close look at the broadband prices for both fixed and mobile service plans around the world, including
detailed price information for mobile broadband plans, broken down by technology (e.g., smartphones,
stick modems, and tablets). We find U.S. prices for standalone fixed broadband are in the mid-level
range in our 38 country survey, but are higher in higher speed tiers. We find that the prices per GB of
data for fixed broadband plans with usage limits and for smartphone data plans with usage limits are on
the lower end of the countries we surveyed. Within the United States, the price per Mbps declined from
2010 to 2011.
10. We also present in this Report updated demographic data for 37 countries on a sub-national
basis, including the latest figures for such indicators as broadband adoption and income, population size,
and population density.23 Using this sub-national data, we are able to draw comparisons across both

18 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d(2) (June 2011) (accessed March 5, 2012), available at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/35/39574709.xls.
19 OECD Broadband Portal, Figure 1d(1) (June 2011) (accessed March 5, 2012), available at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/35/39574709.xls.
20 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed March 5, 2012), available at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/59/39574039.xls. Note that the OECD considers broadband to mean transmission
speeds of at least 256 kbps in one direction (see Indicators of Broadband Coverage, OECD Working Party on
Communication Infrastructures and Services Policy at 8 (Dec. 10, 2009), available at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/39/44381795.pdf), which is considerably slower than the Commission’s
broadband definition. See ¶ 21 infra, for discussion of the Commission’s broadband definition.
21 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1). For Appendix D (demographic data) we have data at the sub-national level (equivalent to
states or larger) for 37 countries. See Appendix D. In Appendix F, we examine broadband speeds in three cities
(including capitals) in 38 countries. See Appendix F. Together, this represents well over 75 communities in 25
countries.
22 For a more detailed discussion of stratified sampling, see n. 84, infra.
23 We did not have demographic data for Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, and Switzerland. See Appendix A.
4


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


international and domestic cities and states, and often the intra-United States variation is greater than the
inter-country differences. In particular, differences in population density, dispersion, and income may
create significant variations. The lower population density and size of the United States present unique
challenges.
11. As we indicated in the previous reports, available data sources on international broadband are
incomplete and generally challenging to compare because of significant gaps and variations in data
collection methodologies across countries, limiting the conclusions we can draw from the data. However,
this Report provides an update on steps the Commission is taking to obtain better, more globally
standardized broadband data in order to help the Commission better meet its statutory responsibilities. In
the future, we hope to build further on the OECD’s data collection efforts. In the meantime, the
information presented today should inform industry and Commission efforts to drive improvements in
adoption, cost, and quality of broadband.

II.

BACKGROUND

A.

Requirements of the BDIA

12. The Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA) requires the Commission to include in its
annual broadband progress report “information comparing the extent of broadband service capability
(including data transmission speeds and price for broadband service capability) in a total of 75
communities in at least 25 countries abroad for each of the data rate benchmarks for broadband service
utilized by the Commission to reflect different speed tiers.”24 The BDIA directs the Commission to
assess broadband capability in international communities comparable to U.S. communities with respect to
population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile.25 The Commission is also
directed to include “a geographically diverse selection of countries” and “communities including the
capital cities of such countries.”26 The Commission must “identify relevant similarities and differences in
each community, including their market structures, the number of competitors, the number of facilities-
based providers, the types of technologies deployed by such providers, the applications and services those
technologies enable, the regulatory model under which broadband service capability is provided, the types
of applications and services used, business and residential use of such services, and other media available
to consumers.”27

B.

Data Presented in the 2011 IBDR


13. The International Bureau published its second report under the BDIA last year. In that report
we presented a wide range of broadband data gathered from public sources.28 Commission staff compiled
advertised broadband prices from the websites of broadband providers in 38 countries (including the
United States).29 For 35 countries, staff also gathered community-level broadband adoption,
demographic, income, and education data from OECD collections, the European Commission’s regional

24 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1).
25 Id. § 1303(b)(2).
26 Id.
27 Id. § 1303(b)(3).
28 International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act International
Broadband Data Report
, IB Docket No. 10-171, Second Report, 26 FCC Rcd 7378, Appendices B-G (2011) (2011
IBDR
).
29 2011 IBDR, 26 FCC Rcd 7378, Appendices C and D.
5


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


database,30 and from national government agencies.31 We presented econometric analyses of how
population size, population density, income, and education affect broadband adoption at a sub-national or
“community” level.32 Our analysis suggested a correlation between broadband adoption and (1)
communities with larger populations, (2) communities with higher population density, and (3)
communities with higher income. The same model, however, did not detect a statistically significant
relationship between education and broadband adoption.33 Staff also compiled information about
broadband policies and the extent of competition in the broadband market in 40 countries (including
Hong Kong).34 In an effort to give some sense of the actual speeds foreign consumers experience, for the
2011 IBDR we surveyed the average actual download speeds determined by Ookla (proprietor of
speedtest.net)35 in 15 foreign capital cities, and compared those speeds to Ookla-determined speeds in 15
U.S. cities with comparable populations. We found that some large European and Asian cities exhibit a
significant edge over comparable U.S. cities in reported download speeds, but also that reported speeds
for some other international cities are roughly comparable to speeds in many U.S. cities.

C.

Efforts To Improve Data Collection

14. Soon after the release of the 2011 IBDR, the Commission sought comment in the Eighth
Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry on, among other things, how to improve upon the 2011 IBDR’s
data and analysis.36 The Commission also sought comment generally on preparation of the next IBDR
and how best to include the international comparison in the Eighth Broadband Progress Report. None of
the filed comments specifically addressed these questions, though several possible improvements for the
IBDR were suggested in ex parte comments, such as determining differences in broadband consumption
(e.g., by a megabits/month metric) and ascertaining the gap between advertised and actual broadband
speeds across countries.37 In its comments, the United States Telecom Association (USTelecom) cited

30 Eurostat is the Statistical Office of the European Communities, located in Luxembourg. Its task is to provide the
European Union with statistics that enable comparisons between countries and regions. See
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/introduction.
31 See 2011 IBDR, Appendix D. Due to differences in data availability, there were some differences in the countries
included for each dataset in the 2011 IBDR. For example, in the event that we lacked demographic or price data for
a given country, we provided market and regulatory/policy information for it in Appendix E. See 2011 IBDR, 26
FCC Rcd at 7388, n. 78. We use the same approach with this IBDR.
32 See 2011 IBDR, Appendix G.
33 See id.
34 See 2011 IBDR, Appendix E. The Appendix E dataset has more countries (40) than the other datasets because it
provided information for countries where other data (price, speed, or demographics) was not available. For instance,
the 2011 IBDR lacked demographic data for Mexico, but did include price and Appendix E data for Mexico.
Similarly, the 2011 IBDR lacked price data for Romania, but did include demographic and Appendix E data for
Romania.
35 Ookla is one of the largest providers of speed test services for Internet users across the globe. Ookla determines
speed and cost indices from the data it collects, which it provides on its website, www.netindex.com. The
Commission uses Ookla’s and M-Lab’s speed testing data tools to analyze broadband quality and availability on a
geographic basis across the United States. See http://www.broadband.gov/qualitytest/about/#qualitytest.
36 Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
Telecommunications of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act,
26 FCC Rcd 11800, 11812-13
(2011).
37 Memorandum re: Ex Parte Meeting in GN Docket No. 11-121 from Strategic Analysis and Negotiations Division,
International Bureau, FCC (Sept. 15, 2011).
6


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


data that demonstrate the United States is “among world leaders in Internet usage.”38 USTelecom argues
that the domestic investment in broadband has made U.S. networks “capable of accommodating massive
data traffic growth . . . generating the most traffic use per user among industrialized nations except South
Korea.”39 In this report, we focus on country demographics, broadband speeds, and broadband prices.
We anticipate looking at usage data in future reports if appropriate data is available.
15. In an effort to standardize the methods countries use to collect broadband data, the
Commission, working together with the State Department and the Department of Commerce, and through
the OECD, started an initiative to collect more reliable and granular international data on broadband
deployment and adoption internationally. The first concrete result of these efforts was a workshop hosted
by the Commission at its Washington, D.C. headquarters in October 2011.40 In Section III.D below, we
discuss the results of this workshop and next steps.

D.

Data and Analysis for the 2012 IBDR


16. Based on the feedback we have received and recognizing the importance of mobile
broadband, we add more detailed and recent national-level price data for mobile broadband service
offerings to this year’s IBDR.41 Wireless broadband subscriptions topped 500 million in OECD countries
by the end of 2010 (compared to 300 million fixed broadband subscriptions).42 According to Cisco,
global mobile data in 2011 (597 petabytes per month) more than doubled for the fourth consecutive
year.43 Cisco also reports that all mobile data traffic generated in 2011 was “eight times the size of the
entire global Internet in 2000.”44 To better understand this significant segment of the broadband market,
we have included a survey of mobile broadband prices and speeds in this year’s report. The resulting
fixed and mobile price dataset (gathered from service provider websites) is over twice as large as the
dataset made available in the 2011 IBDR.45

38 USTelecom Comments at 10. USTelecom, the one commenter who addressed international issues, contends that
the United States “compares very favorably in a number of international comparisons, which raises questions about
the validity of statements” by those who suggest that the United States is lagging. Id. at 7. USTelecom cites OECD
data on telecommunications investment as evidence of U.S. leadership (arguing that the U.S. annual average
investment of $249 per capita in broadband telecommunications networks between 1997 and 2007 exceeds the
OECD average of $155). Id. USTelecom also argues that the greater level of competition for broadband services in
the United States sets it apart (citing data that 82% of U.S. households can choose between two or more wired
competitors, compared to 43% of European Union households that have such a choice). Id. at 9.
39 USTelecom Comments at 10. For 2009, the USTelecom calculated (based on Cisco Visual Networking Index and
ITU data) that the average IP traffic per Internet user in the United States was 19.2 GB/month, second highest to
South Korea, with 40.7 GB/month.
40 See OECD Technical Workshop, Broadband and Its Impact on Consumers and Economies: Developing a New
Framework for Future Metrics, available at http://transition.fcc.gov/ib/Metrics_Workshop/agenda.pdf.
41 The first IBDR, released in 2010, had no mobile price data and the 2011 IBDR contained limited mobile price
data. Prior criticism of the IBDR had been directed at the lack of review of mobile broadband data. 2011 IBDR, 26
FCC Rcd at 7390.
42 “Internet Economy: Wireless Broadband Subscriptions Top Half a Billion, says OECD,” OECD News Release,
June 22, 2011. By January 2012, 101.3 million mobile subscribers in the United States were using data-hungry
smartphones. “US Smartphone users now over 100 Million, Android Increases Market Share,” Digital Trends
(Trevor Moog, March 7, 2012).
43 Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2011 - 2016, at 1, available at
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/white_paper_c11-520862.pdf">http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/white_paper_c11-520862.pdf.
44 Id.
45 See Appendix B infra. With a few exceptions (e.g., New Zealand’s TelstraClear, on whose website regional
availability of some services was clearly indicated), service plans are presumed to be available throughout the
country where offered.
7


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


17. In addition, staff again gathered community-level broadband adoption, demographic, income,
and education data from OECD collections, the European Commission’s regional database,46 and from
national government agencies.47 Staff used Ookla speed test data from 38 countries48 as the basis for an
analysis of international broadband speeds, building substantially on the more limited examination of
broadband speeds we undertook in the 2011 IBDR.49 This actual speed data includes a discussion of the
gap between advertised and actual speed. Finally, staff gathered updated information about the extent of
competition in broadband markets, government policies, and mobile broadband adoption in various
countries around the world.50 We discuss the data that we collected in more detail below.

III.

DISCUSSION

18. In preparing this IBDR, Commission staff have reviewed a number of data sources and
analyzed various rankings that compare broadband service capability in the United States and other
countries.51 The best currently available data set comparing the United States to other countries along a
number of metrics appears to be from the OECD, which collects data on various broadband deployment,
adoption, and usage metrics and publishes rankings of its member countries.52
19. The OECD’s deployment data ranks countries based on particular technologies, rather than
overall coverage. The OECD has not updated its deployment data since we last reported it in the 2011
IBDR
. The U.S. ranking in these surveys ranges from 27th out of 30 in DSL coverage53 to first out of 28
in cable modem coverage.54 The U.S. ranks sixth out of 16 in fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) coverage55 and
eighth out of 29 in 3G mobile wireless coverage.56 As the OECD notes, however, its coverage rankings
are compiled using metrics that may not be fully comparable across countries, thus limiting their utility.57
For example, deployment is measured using different indicators and different reference dates across
various countries.58
20. The OECD’s more recent adoption data (from June 2011) also ranks countries based on
particular technologies, rather than all broadband technologies inclusively. As the most populous
member of the OECD, in terms of sheer number of wireless broadband subscribers, the United States

46 Eurostat is the Statistical Office of the European Communities, located in Luxembourg. Its task is to provide the
European Union with statistics that enable comparisons between countries and regions. See
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/introduction.
47 See Appendix D infra.
48 We used the same set of 38 countries for our price and speed analyses. See Appendix A, infra.
49 See Appendix F infra.
50 See Appendix E infra.
51 Differences between which countries are included for each dataset in this IBDR are primarily due to data
availability. See Appendix B infra.
52 OECD Broadband Portal, available at
http://www.oecd.org/document/36/0,3746,en_2649_33703_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html.
53 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 3d (2009 or latest year).
54 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 3e (2008 or latest year).
55 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 3f (2009 or latest year).
56 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 3g (2009 or latest year).
57 OECD Broadband Portal,
http://www.oecd.org/document/46/0,3746,en_2649_37441_39575598_1_1_1_37441,00.html.
58 See id. and OECD Broadband Portal, 2a. Households with broadband access (1), 2000-09, available at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/59/39574039.xls.
8


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


ranks first out of 34 countries with 203,180,000 (by comparison, the second-ranked country, Japan, has
101,869,228 wireless subscriptions).59 The United States also ranked first in the sheer number of fixed
(wired) broadband subscriptions with 84,672,000 (again the second-ranked country is Japan, with
34,360,672 wired subscriptions).60 The United States ranks 15th out of 34 countries for overall fixed
(wired) broadband subscriptions (27.3) per 100 inhabitants.61 Breaking the fixed subscriber numbers
down by technology, the U.S. ranking in these surveys ranges from 25th out of 34 in DSL adoption62 to
third out of 34 in cable modem adoption,63 to 12th out of 34 in fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) adoption.64
The U.S. ranks seventh overall (out of 34 countries) in total wireless broadband subscriptions (65.5) per
100 inhabitants.65 In addition to measuring fixed or wired broadband adoption on a subscription-per-
inhabitant basis, the OECD’s data also tracks member countries on the basis of the percentage of
households that have fixed broadband. Under this metric, the OECD ranks the United States 14th out of
34.66
21. As the OECD notes, however, numerous market, regulatory, and geographic factors
determine penetration rates, prices, and speeds, and as such country comparisons should be undertaken
with caution.67 Also, adoption is measured using different indicators and different reference dates across
various countries.68 The U.S. ranking according to these adoption metrics is also likely affected by the
OECD’s definition of broadband; it considers transmission speeds of at least 256 kbps in one direction to
be broadband service. This is considerably slower than the 4 Mbps down/1 Mbps up transmission speed
by which the Commission defines broadband.69
22. Further, where a particular country falls in these rankings may be influenced by population
density and dispersion, income, and other factors. USTelecom notes that when comparing countries, one
should take into account the importance of variation in population density.70 USTelecom observes that

59 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (June 2011).
60 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (June 2011).
61 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (June 2011).
62 Id.
63 Id.
64 Id.
65 The OECD includes satellite and fixed wireless subscriptions in its definition of wireless broadband. See
http://www.oecd.org/document/46/0,3746,en_2649_34225_39575598_1_1_1_1,00.html">http://www.oecd.org/document/46/0,3746,en_2649_34225_39575598_1_1_1_1,00.html. The Commission does not
include satellite subscriptions in its broadband deployment determination and considers fixed wireless to be a fixed
service, much like cable or DSL, for purposes of Form 477. See Eighth 706 Report at ¶¶ 31, 41.
66 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (2010 or latest year) (see http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/59/39574039.xls).
Note that some countries (e.g., Japan and Korea) include some wireless subscriber data for this metric. The previous
year, the United States ranked 12th out of 33 countries in this category. See 2011 IBDR at ¶ 9. A fixed broadband
connection is likely to be shared within a household whereas multiple people within a single household may each
have their own mobile broadband connection, thus the OECD tracks fixed broadband penetration using both metrics.
67 OECD Broadband Portal,
http://www.oecd.org/document/46/0,3746,en_2649_34225_39575598_1_1_1_1,00.html.
68 See OECD Broadband Portal, notes for Tables 1(d)(1) and (2). To elaborate, comparisons between countries may
not be precise when data is collected at different times or when countries use different methods of determining what
constitutes a broadband subscription.
69 See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Reasonable and Timely Fashion
, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket Nos. 09-137, 09-
51, Report, 25 FCC Rcd 9556, 9558, ¶ 4 (2010) (2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report).
70 USTelecom Comments at 7.
9


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


the United States has about one quarter the population density of Europe, one-tenth that of Japan, and
one-fifteenth that of South Korea.71 As discussed throughout this IBDR, we recognize the need for better
data on these issues and have initiated efforts to improve available data, both domestically and
internationally. In the meantime, we have continued to compile and analyze the international data that is
available.

A.

Elements of “Broadband Service Capability”

23. The BDIA requires that the Commission gather information concerning “the extent of
broadband service capability (including data transmission speeds and price for broadband service
capability)” in foreign communities.72 Like last year, we understand the responsibility of collecting
information on “the extent of broadband service capability” to require an inquiry into the availability of
broadband service, which in turn includes factors such as available advertised and/or actual speeds,
service quality, and price and affordability to broadband customers.73 We consider these characteristics
here to the extent currently available data allow.
1.

Advertised and Actual Speed

24. The BDIA requires the Commission to collect information on “data transmission speeds” for
broadband services. Speed is a quantitative description of the information transfer rate of a broadband
Internet access service, and Commission staff has defined speed as “data signaling rate,” as expressed in
bits per second.74 The Sixth Broadband Progress Report increased the Commission’s speed benchmark
for broadband to 4 Mbps download and 1Mbps upload because “network capabilities, consumer
applications and expectations… have evolved in ways that demand increasing amounts of bandwidth.”75
The 2010 National Broadband Plan recommended a goal of affordable access to broadband with actual
speeds of at least 100 Mbps to 100 million U.S. households by 2020.76 Investment in faster broadband is
critical for a vibrant economy.
25. For this report, we have again collected both advertised and actual speed data for U.S. and
foreign communities.77 Advertised speeds typically feature “up to” download and upload speeds.78
Different broadband providers in different parts of the world may not use the same methodology for
determining their advertised speeds, and providers vary on how well advertised speeds match actual
delivered speeds. For example, a November 2011 U.K. broadband study (conducted by the U.K.
regulator Ofcom with the assistance of SamKnows) revealed an average advertised speed of 16.3 Mbps,
with a corresponding average actual speed of 7.6 Mbps—a significant gap between the advertised and
actual speed that U.K. consumers experience.79 By contrast, the most recent U.S. data on actual speed

71 Id.
72 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1).
73 Cf. Eighth 706 Report at ¶ 27.
74 See Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on “Need for Speed” Information for
Consumers of Broadband Services
, Public Notice, DA 11-661, n.1 (April 11, 2011).
75 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report, 25 FCC Rcd at 9558, ¶ 4.
76 Omnibus Broadband Initiative (OBI), FCC, Connecting America: The NationalL Broadband Plan, GN Docket No.
09-51 at 9 (2010) (2010 National Broadband Plan).
77 See Appendices B and F.
78 Different broadband providers in different parts of the world may not use the same methodology for determining
their advertised speeds.
79 UK fixed-line broadband performance, November 2011: The performance of fixed-line broadband delivered to
UK residential consumers
, Ofcom, Feb. 2, 2012, at 5, available at
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/broadband-research/Fixed_bb_speeds_Nov_2011.pdf">http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/broadband-research/Fixed_bb_speeds_Nov_2011.pdf; see also
(continued . . .)
10


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


shows that American ISPs deliver on average 96% of advertised speeds during peak intervals, with five
ISPs routinely meeting or exceeding advertised rates.80 In an attempt to address the gap that exists
between advertised and actual speeds in the U.K., the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and
Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) issued guidance (effective April 2012) providing that ISPs may
advertise a given broadband speed only if at least 10% of the customer base can achieve it.81
26. As with the 2011 IBDR, for this Report we have collected data on advertised speed from
broadband provider websites. We obtained advertised speeds and prices from the publicly accessible
websites of mobile and fixed broadband providers in 38 countries. We also examined the OECD’s most
recent data on advertised speed for the 34 OECD countries.82 Our analysis of actual speed data is based
on the publicly available raw source data provided by Ookla, proprietor of speedtest.net, on their Net
Index site. This dataset comprises approximately 14.4 million observations of daily broadband speeds
and spans over 12,000 cities from 159 countries from 2008 to December 2011.
27. Appendix F contains our analysis of the actual speed data, which examines the data on both a
country and city basis. Using the aggregated data, we ranked 38 countries based on a weighted average of
the city mean speeds, with weights determined by the number of tests per city, and using a stratified
sample technique to offset changes in average speeds based on differences in city participation across
countries.83 Because, as we show in Appendix F, aggregate national rankings can be misleading, we also
report speed results at the city level.
28. Below are some highlights from our analysis of Ookla’s actual speed data in 38 countries:
 The shortfall index, or the percentage difference between advertised and actual speed,
declined in all countries in 2011 from 2010. In the United States, the shortfall index declined
from 7.06% to 6.80% based on self-reported data from consumers.
 The United States shows a large increase in the average speed with the percentage of tests
reporting speeds of 10 Mbps or higher increasing from 30% in 2009 to 80% in 2011.
 The United States ranks 24th (11.6 Mbps) in terms of actual download speeds based on the
weighted averages of all city data.
(. . . continued from previous page)
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2012/02/02/ofcom-confirms-uk-average-broadband-isp-downloads-speeds-hit-7-6mbps.html">http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2012/02/02/ofcom-confirms-uk-average-broadband-isp-downloads-speeds-hit-7-
6mbps.html.
80 2012 Measuring Broadband America July Report: A Report on Consumer Wireline Broadband Performance in
the U.S.
, FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, available
at
http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america/2012/july.
81 See Jump in U.K. Broadband Speeds, Ofcom News Release, Feb. 2, 2012, available at
http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2012/02/02/jump-in-uk-broadband-speeds/">http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2012/02/02/jump-in-uk-broadband-speeds/; UPD Ofcom Confirms UK Average
Broadband ISP Download Speeds Hit 7.6Mbps, ISPreview (Feb. 2, 2012), available at
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2012/02/02/ofcom-confirms-uk-average-broadband-isp-downloads-speeds-hit-7-6mbps.html">http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2012/02/02/ofcom-confirms-uk-average-broadband-isp-downloads-speeds-hit-7-
6mbps.html; Broadband: A need for speed, U.K. Advertising Standards Authority and Committee of Advertising
Practice, available at http://www.asa.org.uk/Resource-Centre/Hot-Topics/Broadband-advertising.aspx">http://www.asa.org.uk/Resource-Centre/Hot-Topics/Broadband-advertising.aspx. One study of
advertised broadband speeds in the U.K. after the ASA/CAP guidelines went into effect showed that advertised “up
to” speeds in the fast (i.e., “up to” speeds below 30 Mbps) tier fell by 33%, from 21.66 Mbps to 14.58 Mbps. See
“Stricter Rules Cause UK Advertised Broadband ISP Speeds to Fall by 33 Percent,” ISPReview (April 24, 2012),
available athttp://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/04/stricter-rules-cause-uk-advertised-broadband-isp-speeds-to-fall-by-33-percent.html"> http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/04/stricter-rules-cause-uk-advertised-broadband-isp-
speeds-to-fall-by-33-percent.html.
82 OECD Broadband Portal, Average advertised download speeds, by country (Sept. 2011), Table 5(a), available at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/53/39575086.xls">http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/53/39575086.xls.
83 We use sample weights (i.e. the number of tests taken) instead of population weights (population in a city). The
advantage of using sample weights is that it puts greater weight on speed numbers when they are generated by more
tests rather than a few tests. Using population weights would not achieve this.
11


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


 The United States ranks 17th (12.5 Mbps) when based on a stratified sampling technique
using weighted average actual download speed.84
 When comparing all 50 states with 37 foreign countries in our dataset, we find that
Massachusetts is ranked 11th, Delaware 13th and the 15th, 16th and 17th places are taken by
Rhode Island, Maryland, and New York.
 The United States as a whole ranks in the middle in tests related to latency, jitter, and packet
loss. Again, a more detailed look at state measurements shows wide variations between
states.
2.

Price

29. The BDIA directs the Commission to collect information regarding the price of broadband
service capability.85 A number of international organizations routinely collect and compare broadband
prices across countries.86 OECD’s most recent broadband price data ranks the United States sixth most
expensive among 34 OECD countries in terms of median monthly broadband prices.87 Conversely, in its
Measuring the Information Society 2011 report, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) stated
that “[c]ountries with the relatively cheapest broadband prices are high-income economies and include
Monaco, Macau (China), Liechtenstein, the [United States] and Austria.”88
30. We recognize that the complexity in the pricing of residential broadband services makes any
empirical analysis difficult. The features and quality of broadband service vary across countries and
providers; service is often offered under a multi-part pricing scheme;89 and broadband is frequently
purchased as part of a bundle of services.90 Price comparisons are also difficult because different

84 The aggregate United States ranking presented above (24th) would be a sufficient basis for international
comparison if the Ookla data set had speed data for all cities for the 38 countries in our sample. However, given that
it does not have data for every city in each of these countries, the aggregate rank may be biased. A stratified
sampling would choose an optimal number of cities from each population strata to reflect the actual dispersion of
cities in a country. For example, suppose a country has 90 small cities (assume all have low average speed) and 10
large cities (assume all have high average speed). But Ookla may have data for only 10 large cities and 25 small
cities. In that case the aggregate rank will show a higher speed that we would actually get if we had the data for all
cities. The stratified sampling would involve choosing 90% from the small city sample and 10% from the large city
sample to come up with an aggregate ranking. A stratified sampling approach divides the sample of cities into
different non-overlapping bins according to their population level, and then draws a sample from each bin. If large
cities have inherently different broadband characteristics from smaller and sparsely populated cities, then a stratified
sample will achieve greater precision than an aggregate ranking. See Appendix F for a more detailed discussion of
stratified sampling.
85 See 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1).
86 See, e.g., OECD Broadband Portal, available at
http://www.oecd.org/document/36/0,3746,en_2649_33703_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html.
87 See, OECD Broadband Portal, Table 4c (Sept. 2011 data), available at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/42/39574970.xls. The OECD price ranking is based on cost per megabit/second.
88 Measuring the Information Society 2011, ICT Price Basket, http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/ipb/; see also
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/material/2011/MIS2011-ExceSum-E.pdf. The ITU price ranking is
based on price as a percentage of GNI per capita.
89 For example, the broadband service price often includes an installation charge, a monthly service fee, and possibly
equipment rental charges.
90 See, e.g., Scott Wallsten, Understanding International Broadband Comparisons: 2009 Update (Technology Policy
Institute Paper, June 2009), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1434570 (discussing difficulties in comparing
broadband prices due to differing characteristics of broadband services and the tendency of consumers to purchase
services in bundles).
12


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


providers frequently adopt different price structures for broadband Internet access service. For example,
an offering of unlimited broadband service with a maximum download speed of 5 Mbps for an up-front
fee, a flat monthly recurring fee, and a two-year contract with an early termination fee, is not easily
comparable to a 5 Mbps offering from another provider that charges a different up-front fee, monthly
recurring fees that vary with usage, the ability to cancel service at any point with no penalty or
termination fee, and a usage limit. When broadband is bundled with other services, such as telephone or
video service, it becomes even more complicated to identify the price of the broadband service.
Promotional offers further complicate comparisons. In our research, we observed that broadband
offerings around the world vary with respect to download and upload speeds; type of technology used to
deliver broadband services; limitations on use, including limits on upload and download volumes;
determinations of use limits (download traffic vs. a combination of upload and download traffic vs.
download traffic at peak/non-peak usage times); and consequences of exceeding usage limits (e.g., access
speed reductions, surcharges, service cut-off).
31. In pursuit of a more comprehensive dataset to enable price comparisons, Commission staff
compiled a dataset of publicly available advertised pricing information for residential broadband services
in 38 countries (including the United States), most of which are members of the OECD. Our research this
year generated a much richer dataset than the one included in either of the previous two IBDRs. In
Appendix B we list 1682 fixed plans and 1765 mobile plans for 38 countries, including the United States,
whereas in the 2011 IBDR we provided data on 1554 (mostly fixed91) plans for 38 countries. Staff
collected this pricing information between August 2011 and February 2012.92 The fixed dataset includes
a range of residential broadband offers by all major Internet service providers for these 38 countries.93
The mobile dataset includes smartphone plans, wireless USB stick modem plans, tablet plans, and
netbook plans offered by all major mobile providers in the same 38 countries.94 The countries in the
dataset represent a broad range of broadband markets, including countries of various sizes and population

91 The 2011 IBDR included a small number of wireless plans offered by fixed providers (e.g., wireless USB stick
modem plans that might be offered as a value-added service by a cable operator). We did not include any wireless
ISPs, per se, in the 2011 IBDR.
92 See Appendix B infra. We assembled the data by visiting the websites of broadband providers serving the
countries and communities in our sample. In order to mitigate the effects of variations in a particular broadband
provider’s prices over time, we visited the websites of providers and downloaded the relevant information at one
specific point in time. Thus, some provider data was collected in August 2011 while other provider data might have
been collected in February 2012, but our sample does not reflect pricing changes that any individual provider may
have implemented over the August-to-February period. Our price data reflects only what a given provider was
offering at the specific point in time we accessed its website. For some countries in the dataset, we were able to
determine whether the offerings were on a national or community level. Many advertised offerings were national in
scope, though some were listed for particular cities or on an “as available” basis. Unless noted otherwise, we
assume that a service offering is available nationwide. In the event that a provider website did not indicate if a data
cap was in place for a given plan, we assumed that said plan had no data cap. Because we obtained the information
for the dataset at specific points in time, we were not able to determine which offers are regularly available and
which are significant departures from regularly available offers. Therefore, while ideally we would include only
widely and regularly available offerings, it is possible we captured information on some non-standard offers such as
special, promotional, or other limited offers.
93 For each of the European countries in the dataset, we obtained a list of incumbent operators and their competitors
from the European Commission’s 2010 report on broadband Internet access prices. See Broadband Internet Access
Cost (BIAC), Final Report, prepared for the European Commission, Information Society and Media Directorate-
General, by Van Dijk Management Consultants, January 2010, Brussels, Belgium, available at
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/eda/biac_2009.pdf. This was
supplemented with staff research into incumbent operators and their competitors, for both European and non-
European countries.
94 Id.
13


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


densities from every continent except Africa and Antarctica. The countries we examined range from
emerging economies such as former Soviet republics and Mexico, to mature economies such as Germany
and Japan. We include Israel and Singapore in this year’s report as well. In Appendix B, we have
converted all prices to U.S. dollars based on both 2011 purchasing power parity (PPP)95 and 2010
exchange rates.96 Converting prices through both methods enables more meaningful comparisons.97
32. For each broadband service offering (both fixed and mobile), the dataset includes upload and
download98 speeds, limitations on data usage, and information on the types of technology offered,
including DSL, cable, fiber-to-the-home, fixed wireless, satellite, and public WiFi, for fixed services, and
3G or 4G for mobile. The dataset includes information on advertised monthly recurring charges and
nonrecurring charges such as connection and modem/equipment fees, to allow for a more complete
pricing analysis of each broadband Internet service offering. The dataset includes not only advertised
price but also promotional discounts such as those associated with online sign-up and longer service
contracts. Data on advertised and promotional prices may be helpful for analyzing competition because
advertised prices are focused on winning new customers or keeping customers who may be considering
switching providers. The fixed dataset also contains a number of offers that include services, such as
voice or video, which are bundled with a broadband service. The mobile dataset also contains bundle
offers, typically associated with smartphone plans, which have data, voice, and messaging components.

95 PPPs are currency conversion rates that convert to a common currency and equalize the purchasing power of
different currencies. In other words, they eliminate the differences in price levels between countries in the process
of conversion. PPPs show the ratio of the prices in national currencies of the same good or service in different
countries. For example, if the price of a hamburger in France is €2.84 and the price of an equivalent hamburger in
the United States is $2.20, then the PPP for a hamburger between France and the United States is €2.84 to $2.20, or
€1.29 to the dollar. This means that for every dollar spent on hamburgers in the United States, €1.29 would have to
be spent in France to obtain the same quantity and quality of hamburgers. See OECD, Statistics Directorate
webpage, available at http://oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34357_1_1_1_1_1,00.html; OECD, Statistics
Directorate FAQ webpage, available at
http://oecd.org/faq/0,3433,en_2649_34357_1799281_1_1_1_1,00.html#1799063. The PPP conversion is an
accepted method of equalizing purchasing power in different countries, thereby enhancing comparative studies. Tim
Callen, PPP Versus the Market: Which Weight Matters?, Finance and Development, Vol. 44, no. 1, March 2007,
International Monetary Fund, available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2007/03/basics.htm. It
accurately reflects the cost of a product or service relative to other items in a particular country and can allow a more
valuable international comparison than merely comparing prices based on exchange rates in certain circumstances.
International exchange rates, unadjusted for purchasing power, are most relevant when goods and services are traded
across international borders. Generally, non-traded services or products are cheaper in less affluent countries than in
more affluent countries because of lower wages and income to afford these services. This can vary, though,
depending on how much the service makes use of goods that are traded across international borders. Failure to
account for such differences may understate the cost of those services, relative to the economy, in less affluent
countries. Nonetheless, we have also included in Appendix B the data using current exchange rates to provide an
additional perspective. We believe that use of the exchange rates, unadjusted for purchasing power, provides a
nominal measure of broadband service prices across countries, while the use of the PPP conversion factor not only
converts the local currencies to a common currency but also measures value of broadband services at a uniform
price level. Id.
96 Exchange rates fluctuate on a daily basis. The exchange rates (2010) and PPP conversion factors (2011) we used
for each country are annual rates and factors obtained from the International Monetary Fund, World Economic
Outlook Database, September 2011.
97 Meaningful international PPP price comparisons are easier to achieve when the prices paid are for the same or
similar service in each country. Since broadband service varies in terms of upload and download speeds, non-
recurring charges, and promotional discounts, we have assembled data on various service attributes and associated
those attributes with the price data for our international price comparisons. We believe this approach enables more
useful international price comparisons.
98 In some cases, providers did not indicate upload speeds on their websites. See Appendix B.
14


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Since fixed and mobile service bundles can have a wide assortment of components, these variations
present additional layers of complexity for comparison and analysis.
33. To facilitate analysis of the dataset, we first estimate the total amount a customer pays over
the life of a contract that accounts for all recurring and non-recurring fees and rebates such as promotional
discounts, one-time fees, equipment fees, and duration of contract. We then calculate the monthly net
price and convert all prices to U.S. dollars based on both current exchange rates and purchasing power
parity. We use a simple average to compute the country price because plan level subscribership data is
unavailable, and thus any average price comparison implicitly assumes uniform subscribership of all
plans. Because of this, these price comparisons may not reflect actual consumer experiences. We also
note that the prices gathered by staff are based on advertised speeds in each country, and therefore may
overstate actual speeds seen in a country. As noted above, these prices are also complicated by bundling
offers, usage limits, and other plan characteristics. For mobile broadband, we also do not include device
charges, and to the extent that a plan includes a subsidized device, the price will appear more expensive.
However, using the available data, we compared average prices across countries, using speed tiers and
usage limits. Some of our findings from the price data include:
 Prices (in 2011 PPP) and speed for residential fixed stand-alone broadband plans
o The United States is 14th out of 24 countries in the 1-5 Mbps speed tier (advertised)
with an average stand-alone broadband plan price of $35. The lowest advertised
price for stand-alone services is in Hong Kong at $21.50, while the highest charges
are found in Switzerland at $119.
o The United States is 21st out of 33 countries in the 5-15 Mbps speed tier (advertised)
with an average stand-alone broadband plan price of $44. The lowest advertised
price for stand-alone services is in Slovakia at $21, while the highest charges are
found in Switzerland at $185.
o The United States is 26th out of 32 countries in the 15-25 Mbps speed tier
(advertised) with an average stand-alone broadband plan price of $56.50. The lowest
advertised price for stand-alone services is in Slovakia at $18, while the highest
charges are found in Switzerland at $180.
 Price per GB for fixed broadband with usage limits (i.e., cost per volume of data, not
accounting for speed)
o The United States is ranked third out of 16 countries with an average price of
$0.76/GB. The lowest price is in Denmark with $0.20/GB and the highest is in
Bulgaria with $26/GB.
 Price per GB for smartphone data plans with usage limits (not accounting for speed)
o The United States is ranked ninth out of 37 countries with an average price of
$10/GB. The lowest cost is in Iceland with $4/GB and Mexico is one of the highest
with $95/GB.
 Price per GB for smartphone data plans without usage limits (not accounting for speed)
o The United States is ranked 11th out of 19 countries with an average price of $52.
The lowest cost is in Finland with $5 and Portugal is the highest with $149.
 Price per GB for stick modem mobile data plans with usage limits (not accounting for speed)
o The United States is ranked 24th out of 35 countries with an average price of
$10/GB. The lowest cost is in Finland with $1/GB and France is one of the highest
with $19/GB.
 Price per GB for tablet mobile data plans with usage limits (not accounting for speed)
15


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


o The United States is ranked 17th out of 30 countries with an average price of
$11/GB. The lowest cost is in Denmark with $2/GB and Hong Kong is one of the
highest with $110/GB.

B.

Community-Level Comparisons

34. In addition to requiring the Commission to gather data on broadband service capability, the
BDIA directs the Commission to compare broadband development in communities that are similar to U.S.
communities in terms of population size and density, topography, and demographic profile.99 In view of
the use of the phrase in the BDIA and consistent with our approach in previous reports, for purposes of
this Report we again interpret “community” as a geographical unit smaller than a nation-state.100
35. Following past practice and the BDIA’s goal of developing a geographically diverse and
detailed set of data on international broadband, we use two criteria to guide the selection of countries and
communities. The first is inclusivity: We attempt to capture as full an international profile as possible,
embracing communities from all parts of the world, while also focusing on those countries that have more
developed broadband markets. The second is data availability: We include only communities for which
a substantial set of relevant information is available. These two criteria result in a dataset that exceeds the
statutory minimum requirements of 25 countries and 75 communities comparable to U.S. communities,
and includes communities from almost all nations with the most broadband deployment.101 We believe
that the criteria that we have used for choosing communities and offers for comparison are squarely in
line with what the BDIA requires. In instructing us to include a “geographically diverse selection of
countries,”102 we do not believe that Congress intended for us to use a random sample of countries.
Rather, the BDIA requires the Commission choose communities that are similar to U.S. communities,
which suggests communities with higher income and education levels, and better broadband service, than
communities in poorer, less developed countries.
36. For each community in the dataset, we examine population size and density, and a number of
additional criteria useful for building a “demographic profile.” In assembling our first two IBDRs, we
reviewed major public databases of economic, social, and demographic data, including the World Bank’s
Development Indicators,103 the ITU’s World Telecommunication Indicators,104 the OECD’s regional
statistics database,105 and Eurostat’s regional statistics database to determine what additional demographic
or other factors to include in each community profile.106 We also looked at studies and national
broadband plans from other countries to determine which indicators would reflect the factors typically
expected to influence broadband deployment and adoption. Based on our review of these sources, we

99 Specifically, the statute requires that “[t]he Commission shall choose communities for the comparison under this
subsection in a manner that will offer, to the extent possible, communities of a population size, population density,
topography, and demographic profile that are comparable to the population size, population density, topography, and
demographic profile of the various communities within the United States.” BDIA § 103(b)(3); 47 U.S.C.
§ 1303(b)(3).
100 See International Broadband Data Report, 25 FCC Rcd 11963, 11967-68 (2010); 2011 IBDR, 26 FCC Rcd at
7387.
101 There are some differences in the countries included for each dataset contained in this Report. Those differences
are primarily due to data availability. See Appendix B infra. We also recognize that much room for improvement
remains with regard to international data availability and collection. See Section III.D, infra.
102 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(2)(A).
103 See http://go.worldbank.org/U0FSM7AQ40.
104 See http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/world/world.html.
105 See http://oecd.org/gov/regional/statisticsindicators/explorer/.
106 See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/introduction.
16


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


identified three variables that are particularly likely to be of importance in understanding international
broadband service capability and selected them for inclusion in our report: (1) education level within a
community (percentage of labor force with tertiary—i.e., college or graduate school—education); (2) total
income of a community (GDP, in current U.S. dollars, adjusted for purchasing power parity); and (3)
income per capita within a community (GDP per capita, in current U.S. dollars adjusted for purchasing
power parity). For this third IBDR, we collected data on the same indicators.
37. The data for the variables listed above,107 are drawn mainly from the OECD’s regional
statistics108 and the European Commission’s Eurostat regional data.109 We note that data at the national
level for the variables listed above are generally available annually. Community-level information,
however, is collected less frequently. Accordingly, we provide the most recent publicly-available data
(ranging from 2005-2011) for each variable in the community dataset in Appendix D.110 Data for
communities not covered by the OECD and Eurostat datasets are drawn from national statistical agencies,
communications ministries, and communications regulators.111

C.

Other Relevant Similarities and Differences

38. The BDIA also directs the Commission, for the foreign communities selected, to identify
“relevant similarities and differences” across several criteria.112 For each foreign country included in this
IBDR, Commission staff collected, in Appendix E, information on topography; the regulatory
environment, including national broadband plans; the market structure, including the number of
competitors, broadband penetration, and the types of network technologies deployed; types of
applications and services used; and other media, specifically television and radio outlets, available to
consumers.113

D.

Goals for Future Reports

39. As discussed above, the BDIA requires that we obtain a wealth of international data, much of
which does not exist or is not readily available without significant expense.114 Though this IBDR

107 See Appendix D, infra, which contains the most recent data available for the countries surveyed. A more
complete version containing historical data going back several years is available at
http://www.fcc.gov/reports/international-broadband-data-report-third. Information on topography is included in
Appendix E of this IBDR. See Appendix E.
108 See http://stats.oecd.org.
109 See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/introduction.
110 Communities that include the capital city of a country are indicated in boldface in Appendix D. Communities
that are the same as the capital city are indicated in boldface and italics. For example, Ontario, the Canadian
province where Ottawa is located, is in bold, while the District of Columbia is in bold and italics.
111 See “Notes” in Appendix D infra.
112 The statute provides that “[t]he Commission shall identify relevant similarities and differences in each
community, including their market structures, the number of competitors, the number of facilities-based providers,
the types of technologies deployed by such providers, the applications and services those technologies enable, the
regulatory model under which broadband service capability is provided, the types of applications and services used,
business and residential use of such services, and other media available to consumers.” BDIA § 103(b); 47 U.S.C.
§ 1303(b). We take “other media” to mean other electronic video and audio news, information, and entertainment
options, particularly television and radio. Section 103(b)(2) of the BDIA (47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(2)) also directs the
Commission to identify topography for selected foreign communities.
113 Much of the information reported in Appendix E of our earlier IBDRs has not changed. Therefore, rather than
replicate unchanged information in this report, we incorporate by reference Appendix E from the 2011 IBDR as
supplemented by the new information contained in the new Appendix E herein.
114 See Section II supra.
17


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


improves upon the 2011 IBDR in terms of the amount, quality, and analysis of data collected and
presented, we aspire to further improve our collection of international broadband data. Obtaining more
data (and more granular data) on foreign broadband capability would help us understand broadband
deployment and adoption patterns in the United States and globally.
40. Last year, we outlined efforts underway at the OECD to develop meaningful cross-sectional
and longitudinal data that can be used to gauge key broadband and Internet-related metrics within and
across countries.115 To further this goal, the Commission hosted a two-day OECD broadband metrics
workshop in Washington, D.C. in October 2011, where technical experts from the OECD’s Committee
for Information, Computer and Communications Policy Working Parties,116 academics, international
institutional stakeholders, and industry representatives examined the OECD’s proposed Metrics Checklist
and assessed both the broad policy issues and the methodological underpinnings surrounding its further
revision, adoption and ultimate implementation.
41. The workshop focused primarily on developing a new metrics and data collection framework
to facilitate a harmonized analysis of OECD member economies’ broadband infrastructure availability,
access, and use, and the impact of the Internet on productivity and other macroeconomic parameters.117
The major underlying theme of the workshop was the need to standardize terms, benchmarks and
indicators, and data collection and reporting tools/methods employed by the OECD and member
countries.118
42. Ofcom hosted a second workshop in June 2012. Taking into account the outcome of the first
metrics workshop in Washington in October 2011, participants met to advance the development of new
OECD metrics criteria building on the discussions thus far. In particular, participants at the second
technical workshop discussed:119
 a new proposed definition of broadband (tiered);
 a subset of meaningful cross-sectional and time-series data that can be implemented quickly and
which describes the deployment of broadband services and who adopts them and what services
are adopted; and

115 2011 IBDR, 26 FCC Rcd at 7395. The proposal addressed many of the data needs including broadband
deployment and adoption data at a disaggregated, statistical, geographic area level, with special attention to
residential and business use, speed tiers, the number of competitors, and technology type (e.g., wireline, fixed and
mobile wireless). The proposal also called for collection of demographic metrics at a disaggregated, statistical,
geographic area level, e.g., education, income, age, and household type. Also part of the proposal was a request for
urbanicity metrics, particularly urban versus rural, which could be used as a proxy for loop length. Detailed
subscriber price data for OECD countries was part of the proposal as well.
116 The working parties include the Working Party on Communication Infrastructures and Services Policy (CISP),
the Working Party on the Information Economy (WPIE), and the Working Party on Indicators for the Information
Society (WPIIS).
117 For a summary of what transpired at the workshop, see
http://transition.fcc.gov/ib/Metrics_Workshop/summary.pdf.
118 See OECD Technical Workshop Announcement, “Broadband and Its Impact on Consumers and Economies:
Developing a New Framework for Future Metrics” available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/1/48594941.pdf.
119 See OECD Workshop on Broadband Metrics, 14-15 June 2012, available at
http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,3746,en_21571361_48621988_48622087_1_1_1_1,00.html">http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,3746,en_21571361_48621988_48622087_1_1_1_1,00.html. See also
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/internet/oecd/technical-workshop/ for the papers submitted for discussion at the
workshop.
18


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


 comparable cross-sectional and time-series data, both qualitative and quantitative, that identifies
the drivers of Internet usage and its impact on innovation, productivity and entrepreneurship
within and across countries.

43. Subsequently, the outcome of the workshop, including an initial subset of recommended
metrics, measuring both broadband and the impact of the Internet Economy, will be submitted to the
OECD ICCP Committee for review in fall 2012.120 The recommendations will be provided to the
OECD’s Working Parties for their agreement and implementation in December 2012.

IV.

CONCLUSION

44. In conjunction with the Commission’s adoption of the Eighth 706 Report, the release of this
IBDR fulfills the obligation imposed by Section 103(b) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act.121

V.

ORDERING CLAUSE

45. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 103(b) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act,
47 U.S.C. § 1303(b), and pursuant to authority delegated to the International Bureau in Section 0.261 of
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.261, this IBDR, with its associated Appendices A-F, is ADOPTED.









FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION













Mindel De La Torre

Chief,
International
Bureau


120 Video recordings of all the workshop presentations and final papers can be found at
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/internet/oecd/">http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/internet/oecd/http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/internet/oecd/presentations/"> and http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/internet/oecd/presentations/.
121 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b).
19


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


APPENDIX A: Countries Included in the IBDR



COUNTRIES Appendix

B: Appendix D:

Appendix E:

Appendix

Broadband

Demographics

Market and

F: Actual

Price Dataset

Dataset

Regulatory

Broadband

Background

Speeds

Australia X
X
X
X
Austria X
X
X
X
Belgium X
X
X
X
Bulgaria X
X
X
X
Canada X
X
X
X
Chile X
X
X
X
Cyprus
X
X

Czech Republic
X
X
X
X
Denmark X
X
X
X
Estonia X
X
X
X
Finland X
X
X
X
France X
X
X
X
Germany X
X
X
X
Greece X
X
X
X
Hong Kong
X

X
X
Hungary X
X
X
X
Iceland X
X
X
X
Ireland X
X
X
X
Israel X
X
X
X
Italy X X
X X
Japan X
X
X
X
Korea X
X
X
X
Latvia
X
X

Lithuania X
X
X
X
Luxembourg X
X
X
X
Mexico X
X
X
X
Netherlands X
X
X
X
New Zealand
X

X
X
Norway X
X
X
X
Poland X
X
X
X
Portugal X
X
X
X
Romania
X
X

Singapore X

X
X
Slovakia X
X
X
X
Slovenia X
X
X
X
Spain X
X
X
X
Sweden X
X
X
X
Switzerland X

X
X
Turkey X
X
X
X
U.K. X X
X
X
USA X
X

X



Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


APPENDIX B: Broadband Price Dataset





This dataset can be found on the FCC website at http://www.fcc.gov/reports/international-broadband-data-report-third">http://www.fcc.gov/reports/international-
broadband-data-report-third

.


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Appendix C


International Broadband Prices


Complexity in the pricing of residential broadband services makes any analysis of pricing across
countries difficult. The features and quality of broadband service vary across countries and providers;
service is often offered under a multi-part pricing scheme,1 and broadband is frequently purchased as
part of a bundle of services.2 Price comparisons are also difficult because different providers
frequently have plans that differ in various components of ―price.‖ For example, it is not simple to
compare an offering of unlimited broadband service with a maximum download speed of 5 Mbps for an
up-front fee, a flat monthly recurring fee, and a two-year contract with an early termination fee, to a 5
Mbps offering from another provider that charges a different up-front fee, monthly recurring fees that
vary with usage, and the ability to cancel service at any point with no penalty or termination fee. In
addition, broadband offerings around the world vary with respect to download and upload speeds;
limitations on use, including limits on upload and download volumes; determinations of usage limits
(download traffic vs. a combination of upload and download traffic vs. download traffic at peak/non-
peak usage times); and consequences of exceeding usage limits (e.g., access speed reductions,
surcharges, service cut-off). Price offerings can also vary based on the level of involvement of a
government in a country’s broadband deployment, through the use of taxes and subsidies. Identifying
the price of broadband becomes even more complicated when broadband is bundled with other
services, such as telephone or video service. And promotional offers further complicate comparisons.
Additionally, data on subscribership is not available at the plan level, and any average price
comparison implicitly assumes uniform subscribership of all plans.

Notwithstanding these inherent difficulties, this Appendix provides a best-effort report on available
fixed and wireless broadband plans for all OECD countries,3 the quality attributes of each plan, the
advertised and promotional prices, and non-recurring charges associated with each plan. We analyze
this data in sections 1 (for fixed broadband) and 3 (for mobile broadband). In section 2, we use data
provided by Ookla to compare countries based on speed-adjusted prices for fixed broadband.

I. Data on Residential Fixed Broadband Prices







1 For example, broadband service price often includes an installation charge, a monthly service fee, and possibly
equipment rental charges.
2 See, e.g., Scott Wallsten, Understanding International Broadband Comparisons: 2009 Update (Technology
Policy Institute Paper, June 2009), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1434570 (discussing difficulties in
comparing broadband prices due to differing characteristics of broadband services and the tendency of consumers
to purchase services in bundles).
3 Staff gathered data on the most popular offerings if they were identified as such on the provider’s website. If
the website did not indicate which plans were most popular, we obtained data for all offers advertised. To the
extent possible, we tried to capture the same plans that OECD used in its 2010 study of popular broadband offers
and prices; however, not all of those plans from 2010 were still being offered in 2011. See Table 7.19. Broadband
pricing for residential users in the OECD area, September 2010,
http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3746,en_2649_34225_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html.
1


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Commission’s Web Harvest Data

In compliance with the BDIA’s directive that we compare, among other metrics, price information in
75 communities in at least 25 countries.4 Commission staff has compiled a dataset of publicly available
advertised pricing information for residential broadband services in 38 countries (including the United
States), most of which are members of the OECD. Our research this year generated a much richer
dataset than the one included in the previous IBDR. The dataset includes 16715 residential post-paid
broadband offers by all major Internet service providers for these 38 countries,6 including 113 U.S.
plans. Staff collected this pricing information between August 2011 and December 2011.7 The
countries in the dataset represent a broad range of broadband markets, including countries of various
sizes and population densities from every continent except Africa and Antarctica. The economies of
the countries we examined range from emerging economies such as former Soviet republics and
Mexico, to mature economies such as Germany and Japan.

The dataset includes information on advertised monthly recurring charges and nonrecurring charges,
such as connection and modem fees, to allow for a more complete pricing analysis of each broadband
Internet service offering. It also includes promotional discounts and rebates such as those associated
with online sign-up and longer service contracts, and the duration of those promotions. Information on
incidental and recurring costs (such as installation and equipment rental fees), and other charges is also
included.

For each broadband service offering, the dataset includes upload and download speeds,8 limitations on
data usage, and information on the types of technology offered. In the dataset there are 192 symmetric
DSL plans, 386 ADSL plans, 128 VDSL plans, 351 cable plans, 463 fiber plans, 51 DSL-cable plans,
22 DSL-fiber hybrid plans, 60 cable-fiber hybrid plans, and 18 satellite plans.9 Appendix Table 1a

4 BDIA § 103(b); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b).
5 The raw data that was collected had 1732 plans. However for some plans either the monthly charges or some
other information was missing so the final cleaned dataset has 1671 plans.
6 For each of the European countries in the dataset, we obtained a list of incumbent operators and their
competitors from the European Commission’s 2010 report on broadband Internet access prices. See Broadband
Internet Access Cost (BIAC)
, Final Report, prepared for the European Commission, Information Society and
Media Directorate-General, by Van Dijk Management Consultants, January 2010, Brussels, Belgium, available at
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/eda/biac_2009.pdf. This was
supplemented with staff research into incumbent operators and their competitors, for both European and non-
European countries.
7 We assembled the data by visiting the websites of broadband providers serving the countries and communities
in our sample. In order to mitigate the effects of variations in a particular broadband provider’s prices over time,
we visited the websites of providers and downloaded the relevant information at one specific point in time. Thus,
data was collected between October 2011 and December 2011. Our price data reflects only what a given provider
was offering at the specific point in time we accessed its website. For some countries in the dataset, we were able
to determine whether the offerings were on a national or community level. Many advertised offerings were
national in scope, though some were listed for particular cities or on an ―as available‖ basis. Because we obtained
the information for the dataset at specific points in time, we were not able to determine which offers are regularly
available and which are significant departures from regularly available offers. Therefore, while ideally we would
include only widely and regularly available offerings, it is possible we captured information on some non-
standard offers such as special, promotional, or other limited offers.
8 In some cases, providers did not indicate upload speeds on their websites. See Appendix C.
9 The DSL, ADSL and VDSL categories include DSL, ADSL, ADSL2+, VDSL, VDSL2, XDSL, SHDSL,
DSLD, LAN, XDSL & SIOL Telephony; cable includes regular cable and the upgraded Docsis3 technology;
Fiber includes, regular fiber, FTTH and NGN; the Cable-DSL hybrid includes some combination of ADSL or
2


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


shows the number of plans for each country, disaggregated by the type of broadband bundle.
Additionally, the usage limits on each plan and the consequences of reaching that usage limit are
reported, such as the extra charge customers may incur, or whether they experience a slowdown of their
speeds.

The dataset also shows the bundling characteristics of the plans. Service bundles can have a wide
assortment of components, and variations in broadband plans bundled with other services present
additional layers of complexity. The 2011 IBDR had listed whether the bundles were double, triple or
quad play, without listing the bundle elements. While this is useful in understanding the differences in
pricing, it does not capture the full extent of the variations because the bundle components are
unknown. For example, a double play bundle that has broadband and video will be priced very
differently from a bundle that has broadband and phone service. Without this information, interpreting
pricing differences across countries is problematic. The 2012 IBDR price comparison corrects this
shortcoming by listing the bundle components. The dataset shows whether the offer is a standalone
broadband plan, or whether it includes bundled services such as voice, wireless, WiFi or video. Data
on the number of video channels included in a video bundle, or the type of TV service (basic, premium
and so on), and the number of phone minutes included in phone packages are included wherever
available. This allows us to analyze price differences more rigorously.

Computing Monthly Net Price Across Countries

To compare prices across countries, first, we need to construct an annual or monthly price that reflects
all the rebates, charges and fees associated with each plan. Thus, this price reflects all the recurring
and non-recurring charges of a plan. To accomplish this, we first estimate the total amount that the
customer pays over the life of the contract10 using the formula below.11
Net price for the contract term = (promotional price * number of months promotion lasts) +
(standard price * (contract term – number of months promotion lasts)) + installation fee
+ activation fee + equipment charges + modem rental charge + other fees (incl. line charges) –
rebates.



VDSL with cable; the fiber-DSL hybrid includes some combination of fiber with VDSL or XDSL; Cable-fiber
hybrid includes some combination of a cable and fiber, or a hybrid fiber coaxial network. Some plans did not list
some characteristics and were dropped from the final dataset of 1671 total plans.
10An alternative approach would be to calculate the first year annual cost to the customer. However, this may bias
the resulting price variable as some of the one-time rebates will be deducted for the 12 month cost, rather than
over the entire contract period, which is usually 18 months or more. This will bias the prices downward.
Conversely, installation charges and other one-time fees will be added to the 12 month period rather than being
spread out over the longer contract period. This will bias prices upwards. To avoid such biases we calculate the
contract length cost to the customer and then calculate the monthly cost by dividing it by the length of the
contract. Although this is the best price measure, some biases remain. In particular, the contract period pricing
may have a downward bias if prices revert to ―full rack rate‖ and people pay that after the contract period. Or the
bias maybe upward if save-desk prices are lower than advertised. However, without detailed data on the average
revenue per user in ever plan category for every provider in every country, the contract length price calculation is
the appropriate method for calculating prices.
11 This is a modified version of the one year formula used by Scott Wallsten in his paper ―Residential and
Business Broadband Prices Part 1: An Empirical Analysis of Metering and Other Price Determinants‖, available
at http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=scott_wallsten.
3


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334



We then calculate the monthly net price by dividing it by the length of the contract. Next, we convert
all prices to U.S. dollars based on both current exchange rates12 and purchasing power parity (PPP).13
We use both approaches since each methodology has its pros and cons.14 When computing the country
price, we compute the simple average of all the prices as subscribership data at the plan level is
unavailable. Thus caution must be taken when interpreting these price comparisons.
Figure 1 (Appendix Table 1b) shows the monthly net price data for both the PPP and exchange rate
conversions. This price is a simple average price over all plans in the sample for each country and does
not correct for any quality attributes such as bundling characteristics, speed, or usage limits.

12 Exchange rates fluctuate on a daily basis. The exchange rates (2010) and PPP conversion factors (2011) we
used for each country are annual rates and factors obtained from the International Monetary Fund, World
Economic Outlook Database, September 2011.
13 PPPs are currency conversion rates that convert to a common currency and equalize the purchasing power of
different currencies. In other words, they eliminate the differences in price levels between countries in the
process of conversion. PPPs show the ratio of the prices in national currencies of the same good or service in
different countries. For example, if the price of a hamburger in France is €2.84 and the price of an equivalent
hamburger in the United States is $2.20, then the PPP for a hamburger between France and the United States is
€2.84 to $2.20, or €1.29 to the dollar. This means that for every dollar spent on hamburgers in the United States,
€1.29 would have to be spent in France to obtain the same quantity and quality of hamburgers. See OECD,
Statistics Directorate webpage, available at
http://oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34357_1_1_1_1_1,00.html and FAQ webpage, available at
http://oecd.org/faq/0,3433,en_2649_34357_1799281_1_1_1_1,00.html#1799063. The 2011 IBDR reports
(Footnote 61) that AT&T contends that since PPP does not measure the actual cost of broadband service but
rather its cost relative to the cost of living, the use of PPP gives EU countries a 21-28% discount compared to the
United States. The PPP conversion is an accepted method of equalizing purchasing power in different countries,
thereby enhancing comparative studies. Tim Callen, PPP Versus the Market: Which Weight Matters?, Finance
and Development, Vol. 44, no. 1, March 2007 International Monetary Fund, available
at
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2007/03/basics.htm"> http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2007/03/basics.htm. It accurately reflects the cost of a product or
service relative to other items in a particular country and can allow a more valuable international comparison than
merely comparing prices based on exchange rates in certain circumstances. International exchange rates,
unadjusted for purchasing power, are most relevant when goods and services are traded across international
borders. Generally, non-traded services or products are cheaper in less affluent countries than in more affluent
countries because of lower wages and income to afford these services. This can vary, though, depending on how
much the service makes use of goods that are traded across international borders. Failure to account for such
differences may understate the cost of those services, relative to the economy, in less affluent countries.
Nonetheless, we have also included in Appendix C the data using current exchange rates to provide an additional
perspective. We believe that use of the exchange rates, unadjusted for purchasing power, provides a nominal
measure of broadband service prices across countries, while the use of the PPP conversion factor not only
converts the local currencies to a common currency but also measures value of broadband services at a uniform
price level. Id.
14 See Rodney L. Ludema, ―Nominal Prices, Real Prices and Faux Prices: The Perils of Comparing Individual
Prices at Purchasing Power Parity Exchange Rates‖ (2010).
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1575745">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1575745
4


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


200

Figure 1

S$) 180

Comparing Average Monthly Broadband Net Price Using Alternate

U 160

Currency Conversions, 2011

140
P & 120
$PP
United States
( 100
h
80
60
Mont
40

20
Per

0
ce
Pri

e Net
ag
er
v
A
Monthly Net Price ($ PPP Conversion)
Monthly Net Price (US$ Exchange Rate Conversion)
Note: The monthly net price reflects the price per month, including rebates, installation charges, equipment
charges such as modem rentals and other fees. So the net price is different from the simple monthly advertised
price.


Generally, we find that Germany, Korea, Sweden and Estonia have some of the lowest monthly
broadband prices, and Singapore, Mexico and Switzerland have the highest prices for the PPP
conversion. The United States appears to be one of the high priced countries with an average price of
$69.75 per month.15
It would be inaccurate however, to perform an international comparison of prices based solely on
average net prices. Usage limits, speeds, and bundling characteristics on plans differ considerably
among countries, and average price alone is not meaningful as it conflates the price of different types of
plans into one price. Thus, comparisons should be done based on usage limits, i.e. price per gigabyte
(GB) of data included in the plan, or prices in narrowly defined speed tiers. Below, we discuss both
metrics.


Comparing Standalone Broadband Net Prices by Speed (1-25 Mbps) and Technology

Prices for different broadband service tiers vary widely. In the United States, the cheapest plan in our
sample is $23 per month with 768 Kbps download speed and unlimited data, while the most expensive
naked broadband plan in the sample16 is a FiOS fiber plan at $199 per month with 150 Mbps of
download speed, 35 Mbps of upload speed and unlimited data. In this section we compare countries
based on the average advertised monthly net price of standalone broadband plans, comparing only

15 This price is a simple average of all the U.S. plans (standalone and bundled broadband) in the dataset.
16 FiOS has recently come out with a 300 Mbps broadband plan for $209.99.
Sourcehttp://www22.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/fastest-internet-plans/">: (http://www22.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/fastest-internet-plans/)
5


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


comparable speed tiers. We focus on speed tiers in the 1-25 Mbps range since 86% of U.S. broadband
consumers17 subscribed to services in this range in 2011.

We caution that our comparisons are based on advertised speed,18 i.e. the maximum theoretical speed
that the consumer could achieve with a given broadband connection, and not what the consumer will
actually get. To the extent that advertised speeds overstate actual speeds by less in the United States
than in most other countries, comparing advertised speeds will disfavor the United States. We discuss
this possibility in greater detail in the next section.

Figure 2a

Average Monthly Net Price ($ PPP) of Residental (Fixed) Standalone

Broadband 2011

1-5 Mbps of Download Speed
120
PPP) 100
($
80
Price
60
Net

40
United States
20
Monthly
0

Note: The monthly net price reflects the price per month, including rebates, installation charges,
equipment charges such as modem rentals and other fees, which is different from the simple
monthly advertised price. The average price is obtained by a simple average over all technologies,
excluding satellite, in the 1 – 5 Mbps speed tier. Austria, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Korea,
New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom do not have any standalone
broadband plans in the 1-5 Mbps speed tier in our sample. Portugal and Germany only have
satellite plans for that speed tier. Thus all are excluded from Figure 2a.


17 We compute this using subscription data from the FCC’s 477 report that collects the number of residential and
business lines in eight speed buckets. The percentage of subscribers in the 1-25 Mbps speed tier is the proportion
of subscribers in the 1.5-25 Mbps speed tiers and half the subscribers in the 768 Kbps-1.5 Mbps speed tier.
18 See discussion of the ―shortfall index‖ or the percentage difference between advertised and actual speed in
Appendix F (Figure 1B).

6


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Appendix Table 2a-2c and Figure 2a-2c compares the average monthly net price19 of standalone
broadband in the 1-5 Mbps, 5-15 Mbps and 15-25 Mbps download speed tiers. Figure 2a shows that
the United States is 14th out of 24 countries within the 1-5 Mbps speed tier, with an average price of
$34.93 and an average download speed of 2.78 Mbps (when satellite is excluded). The two lowest
price countries are Hong Kong and Poland with an average net price of approximately $22. These
countries also report a lower average download speed, however, of 1.65 Mbps. The two highest price
countries are Lithuania and Switzerland with net prices of $81.90 and $119.33 respectively. Appendix
Table 2a suggests that a majority of the standalone plans at the 1-5 Mbps speed tier are DSL plans. Out
of the 19 countries that have DSL plans, the United States is the 7th lowest in price with an average net
price of $34 per month. U.S. cable prices are the most expensive in this speed tier with an average of
$42.30 (standalone broadband). The lowest cable price in this speed tier is $16.70 in Poland. The
United States also has satellite plans in this category with an average price of $84.32. Germany and
Portugal were the only other countries with satellite plans in this speed tier. See Appendix Table 2a.

Figure 2b

Average Monthly Net Price ($ PPP) of Residental (Fixed) Standalone

Broadband 2011

5-15 Mbps of Download Speed
200
180
)
P 160
PP 140
($
e
c 120
100
t Pri
Ne

80
ly
th
60
United States
n
o
40
M
20
0

Note: The monthly net price reflects the price per month, including rebates, installation charges, equipment
charges such as modem rentals and other fees. The net price is different from the simple monthly advertised
price. The average price is obtained by a simple average over all technologies, excluding satellite, in the 5-15
Mbps speed tier. In our sample, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Spain, and the United Kingdom do not
have any standalone broadband plans in the 5-15 Mbps speed tier; Portugal only has satellite plans for this
speed tier in our sample, and is thus excluded from this graph.


19 Spain has no standalone broadband plans in any speed-tier in the IBDR sample. Other countries, such as
Austria, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and the United
Kingdom, do not have standalone plans in all speed-tiers.
7


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334



Figure 2b shows average prices in the 5-15 Mbps speed tier (again excluding satellite services). The
United States is 21st out of 31 countries with an average price of $43.71 and an average download
speed of 10.72 Mbps. The two lowest price countries are Slovakia and Italy with an average net price
of approximately $21. These countries report average download speed of 10 Mbps. The two highest
price countries are Mexico and Switzerland with net prices of $95.60 and $185 respectively. Appendix
Table 2b shows the breakdown by technology in this speed tier. The United States is 9th amid 24
countries having DSL plans, with an average net price of $40.80 per month. The lowest average price
is in Sweden ($25.30) and the highest is in Switzerland ($185). The United States cable and fiber plans
average $44.75 and $54.99 respectively. See Appendix Table 2b for prices in other countries.

Figure 2c

Average Monthly Net Price ($ PPP) of Residental (Fixed) Standalone

Broadband 2011

15-25 Mbps of Download Speed
) 180
P 160
140
($ PP

e 120
ric 100
t P
80
Ne
60

40
hly
20
0
Mont
Note: The monthly net price reflects the price per month, including rebates, installation charges, equipment
charges such as modem rentals and other fees. So this is different from the simple monthly advertised price. The
average price is obtained by a simple average over all technologies, excluding satellite, in the 15-25 Mbps peed
tier. Lithuania, Mexico, Portugal and Spain, do not have any standalone broadband plans in this speed tier in our
sample, and are thus excluded from the graph.


Figure 2c shows average prices in the 15-25 Mbps speed tier (again excluding satellite services). The
United States is 26th out of 32 countries with an average price of $56.50. The two lowest price
countries are Slovakia and Korea with an average net price of approximately $18-19 and average
download speeds of 20-25 Mbps. The two highest price countries are New Zealand and Switzerland
with net prices of $124.50 and $180 respectively. Appendix Table 2c shows the technology
breakdown. The United States is 15th among 25 countries having DSL plans, with and average net
price of $49 per month. The lowest average DSL price is in Italy ($22) and the highest is in
Switzerland ($242.90). The United States is among the more expensive in terms of cable and fiber.

8


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Overall, prices in the United States fall in the middle among surveyed countries in the 1-15 Mbps speed
range and in the upper 75th percentile in the 15-25 Mbps range. In speed tiers above 25 Mbps, the
United States is also one of the more expensive countries as well.

Double Play Broadband Net Prices by Bundle Type (1-25 Mbps)
Double play bundles can comprise broadband and phone, broadband and video and Double play
bundles can comprise broadband and phone, broadband and video and broadband and wireless bundles.
The features, speeds and prices of these bundles vary significantly and the appropriate comparison is
thus between similar bundle types. The two major category of double play bundles are broadband and
video and broadband and phone. The most common double play bundle is a broadband and phone
bundle (29 countries), followed by the broadband and video bundle (16 countries).20 Only seven
countries have broadband and wireless bundles in our sample.
With the data we have, a meaningful comparison of video double play bundles across countries is
impossible. The composition of video channels and the associated content cost differ widely between
countries. Generally speaking, in the United States, the typical video package includes more premier
channels with higher content cost. For example, in our dataset the FiOS double play video plan, with 15
Mbps download speed and 5 Mbps upload speed, has more than 210 channels including more than 55
HD channels, premium channels such as ESPN and Discover, extensive On Demand library with over
35,000 titles many of which are free, and 46 commercial-free music channels. In comparison, a similar
broadband plan in the United Kingdom offers 16 Mbps download speed along with 70 free preview
channels and ―catch-up‖ TV.21 Content costs in the United States are very high compared to other
countries. We estimate that the cost of video content in the United States is $42.70 per subscriber per
month on average.22 In contrast, adding or removing 150 video channels to a broadband product in
France does not change the monthly charge and in most European countries, adding video to a
broadband service changes the price generally between five to ten Euros a month.23 This makes it
impossible to meaningfully compare bundles that contain video services.
Double play bundles that include a phone service along with the broadband service allow for better
comparisons. Even this comparison poses challenges, however. In particular, we must control the
number of local and long distance minutes. Many phone double play plans in the United States have
unlimited local and long distance calling within the United States, while most plans in other countries
have limited minutes. To address these issues, in Figure 3, we compare DSL double play phone plans
in the 1-25 Mbps download speed tier,24 including only those plans with unlimited local and long
distance calling. See Appendix Table 3a for the data.

20 There are 14 countries in Appendix Table 3c as Korea and Canada have no double play plans in the 1-25 Mbps
speed tier in the sample.
21 The ―TV Essential‖ plan by BT TV allows a subscriber to add this basic TV package for 4 pounds per month if
they already have the broadband.
22 This is estimated as the sum of the affiliate fees for all cable channels listed on SNL Kagan and 50 cents for the
retransmission consent fees for each of the four major broadcast networks.
23 http://abonnez-vous.orange.fr/residentiel/forfaits/livebox-star.aspx">See http://abonnez-vous.orange.fr/residentiel/forfaits/livebox-star.aspx.
24 This sample is also restricted to plans that have less than 20 Mbps of upload speed.
9


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Figure 3

Average Monthly Net Price ($ PPP) of Residental (Fixed) Phone and

Broadband Bundle with Unlimited Local and Long Distance calling Minutes,

2011
1-25 Mbps of Download Speed
)
P 140
P 120
P
$ 100
(
e
80
60
ric
P
40
t
20
Ne

0
hly
Mont


We find that the United States is 10th among 17 countries having phone double play bundles with
unlimited local and long distance minutes, with an average price of $61.80. The least expensive
country is Sweden ($18.40) and the most expensive is Singapore ($139). The data for all video and
phone double play plans by speed-tier are presented in Appendix Tables 3b-3c. The data for the triple
play plans (broadband, video and phone) by speed tier are presented in Appendix Table 3d. We did not
do a further analysis of the data due to the lack of comparability in the plans when video is included in
the bundles. The above discussion shows how complex the price data are and the challenges with
international comparisons. Thus further analysis that appropriately controls for the characteristics of the
plans, such as usage limits and advertised speed, is required to understand where the United States
stands in terms of the quality-adjusted price of broadband.25

25 If detailed disaggregated data were available for all plan characteristics across countries, the most appropriate
price comparison would be based on a hedonic price index that is constructed from a hedonic regression analysis.
However, due to the unavailability of some important price attributes such as the number of channels included in
video, the quality-adjusted prices obtained from a hedonic regression based on current data may not be
appropriate. Thus, we do not present the quality-adjusted price results in the report. In brief, a hedonic regression
approach decomposes a product into its attributes, and then obtains estimates of the value of each attribute in the
overall product. This assumes that the product is a sum of its characteristics and that the market can value those
characteristics. For example, in our case, the price (or value) of a broadband plan can be decomposed into how
much speed the plan promises to deliver, the usage limits on the plan, the consequence of exceeding the usage
limit, the bundle characteristics, such as whether video is included or not, and so on. Presumably, the sum of the
value to the consumer of each of these attributes leads to the composite price. Hedonic models are commonly
used in constructing the Consumer Price Index, and are usually estimated using regression analysis. Comparing
this price index, rather than raw average prices, allows for a more valid comparison of the ―average‖ broadband
price in each country. We conducted a hedonic regression analysis to model prices as a function of speed,
technology type, usage limits associated with each plan, consequence of that usage limit (speed slow down versus
additional charge), contract length, and characteristics of the bundle (double, triple or quad play, including the
bundle components) if the broadband plan is part of a bundle and country fixed effects. We found that the U.S.
10


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334



Comparing Monthly Broadband Net Price per GB

Next, we compare countries based on the price per gigabyte of data that is included in the usage limit,
and does not control for difference in speed or other bundle characteristics. Consequently, we base the
comparison on plans that have a specified usage limit. In our sample, 16 countries have such plans.
Figure 4 (Appendix Table 4a) presents the results; the United States ranks 3rd out of the 16 countries
with an average monthly price of $0.76/GB. Denmark appears to be the cheapest, with an average
monthly price of $0.02/GB, and Bulgaria is the most expensive at $25.77/GB. From Appendix C
Table 4a and b, it appears that ―light users‖ of broadband, who can remain within the imposed usage
limits, fare better in the United States compared to most other countries. ―Heavy users,‖ i.e. those that
may require unlimited plans, would fare better in countries such as Sweden, Estonia and Germany.

Figure 4

)

Average Monthly Net Price per GB ($ PPP/GB) of Residental (Fixed)

Broadband 2011

/GB
P

Plans with Usage Limits

25
($ PP
20
GB 15
r
e 10
P
e
5
ric
P
0
t
Ne

hly
Mont
Note: This comparison is based on plans that have hard usage limits in all speed tiers, all technologies and both
standalone and bundled plans.


The above analysis shows how country rankings can change considerably when plan characteristics,
such as usage limits, are taken into account. It demonstrates how complex the price data is and the
difficulty in making international comparisons. Thus, further analysis that appropriately controls for

quality adjusted prices were lower than the simple average prices we obtained from the raw data. For additional
literature about hedonic regressions, see Rosen, S., ―Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation
in Pure Competition,‖ Journal of Political Economy, January-February 1974, pp. 34-55; Greenstein, S., and
McDevitt, R., ―Evidence of a Modest Price Decline in US Broadband Services,‖ The Center for the Study of
Industrial Organization, Northwestern University, Working Paper #0102 (2010); Stranger, G., and Greenstein, S.,
―Pricing at the On-ramp to the Internet Price Indices for ISPs during the 1990s‖ (2008), in Hard to Measure
Goods and Service: Essays in Memory of Zvi Griliches, edited by Ernst Berndt and Charles Hulten, University of
Chicago Press; Williams, B., ―A Hedonic Model for Internet Access Service in the Consumer Price Index,‖
Monthly Labor Review, July 2008, pp. 33-48.
11


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


the characteristics of the plans, such as usage limits, advertised speed, and bundling, is required to
understand where the United States stands in terms of quality-adjusted price of broadband.


II. Speed-Adjusted Prices


As the earlier discussion suggests, advertised speeds may not equate to the speeds consumers actually
receive, and the gap between advertised and actual speeds may differ between countries. Given this, an
additional useful metric when comparing the affordability of broadband across countries is a measure
of actual speed adjusted price, i.e. price per Mbps of actual measured speed. Ookla’s ―Value Index‖
data (which is a sub-section of the Net Index data) reports the daily median price per Mbps26 in 848
cities around the world. In contrast to our web scraped data, the Ookla data also has the advantage that
all reported speeds are for actual plans with subscribers, and the number of reports may roughly
correspond to the share of various speed plans across different countries.

While Ookla data is the best available for international prices based on actual speeds, some caveats
have to be noted when interpreting this data. First, the prices reported in Ookla are derived from
surveys that are administered to people who take the speed test and are therefore subject to
misreporting. Second, when asked about the price of a broadband plan, consumers may report the
recurring monthly charges and exclude non-recurring charges such as installation fees. Thus, if there
are some countries with high non-recurring costs, this variation will not be captured in the Ookla price
data. Third, we do not know whether the reported prices are for standalone broadband or broadband
purchased as part of a bundle, nor do we have information on non-speed plan attributes like monthly
usage limits. Thus, we cannot disaggregate by the bundling characteristics or usage limits, as we did
earlier, but only compare average prices.

Figure 5 shows the average weighted price (U.S. dollars) per Mbps27 of download speed for consumers,
for 2010 and 2011.28 Bulgaria, Lithuania, Slovakia, Hungary and Hong Kong pay the lowest amount
per unit of speed, while New Zealand, Australia, Chile and Mexico are the most expensive. The price
per Mbps appears to have increased in Switzerland and Finland from 2010 to 2011. We find that
although the United States is not among the least expensive countries, the price per Mbps noticeably
declined from 2010 to 2011. Appendix C Table 5 has the data.


26 One potential bias from this metric is that more expensive plans (e.g., $100+ for 100 Mbps) may look cheaper
than lower-price plans. That also means that to the extent the U.S. has a bias toward lower-speed plans and slow
speed DSL plans relative to other countries, this figure will also show a bias toward higher prices.
27 The Ookla data reports the median price per Mbps on a daily basis for each city in its data set. We calculate the
average of these prices.
28 The Net Index price data does not include Japan or South Korea.
12


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334




Source: Based on the Value Index data from the Ookla Net Index database. The price per Mbps is
weighted by the sample size for each city when constructing the country average. Japan, the Netherlands
and South Korea are not in this dataset.

The data presented in the above graph provides a snapshot of the trends in speed adjusted price by
comparing country-level data from 2010 and 2011. However, there is significant heterogeneity among
U.S. states. Additionally, the 2010 data is sparse and does not have as extensive coverage as the 2011
data. Therefore, in Figure 6, we show the weighted average price per Mbps for the top and bottom 25th
percentile of countries and U.S. states for 2011. We find that South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island,
and Virginia are among the states with the lowest price per Mbps. In contrast, Mississippi, Maine,
Alaska, and Washington D.C. are on the top end of the price distribution. The data for all the countries
and U.S. States is shown in Appendix C Table 6.



13


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334



Source: Value Index from the Ookla Net Index database provided by Ookla. Japan, the Netherlands and South
Korea are not in this dataset. The blue bars denote U.S. states.

As noted above, the disparity in speed-adjusted priced across the United States may be the result of
sample errors or differences in broadband adoption patterns considered above. Additionally, these
rankings do not control for the type of cities generating the data. For example, from existing literature,
we know that population level and/or density is directly related to availability and costs of broadband.29
The rankings further illustrate the difficulty in comparing the data and the need for further, careful
analysis of the speed-adjusted price data. Controlling for population metrics will be considered for
future reports.

III.

Mobile Broadband Prices


The price data for mobile broadband plans are complex, and every country has different reporting and
advertising standards. Usage limits, differing peak and off-peak speeds, all effect price comparisons.
For example, advertising about the speed of the broadband appears to vary widely across countries.
Some carriers in countries such as Hong Kong,30 Italy31 and Poland,32 advertise the theoretical

29 See, e.g., Aron, D. J. and D. E. Burnstein., ―Broadband Adoption in the United States: An Empirical Analysis‖
March 2003, Mimeo; Gruber, H. and Koutroumpis, P., ―Competition Enhancing Regulation and Diffusion of
Innovation: The Case of Broadband Networks‖, Draft July 2011, electronic copy available at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1898125.
30 Hong Kong CSL. 1O1O 4G Ultimate Mobile Broadband Service Plan.
31 Vodaphone Italia, Internet Speed (netbook) Plan (3G HSPA).
14


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


maximum available speeds, i.e. they report 100 Mbps for 4G and 42.2 Mbps for 3G HSPA+. In
contrast, the highest speed advertised for a 4G plan in the United States is 5-12 Mbps and for a 3G plan
it is 7.2 Mbps.33

Device discounts and phone plans that have to be purchased along with data plans vary widely by
country as well. Phone plans associated with broadband also vary in terms of the number of minutes
and text messages included in the plans. And because most broadband on smartphones is bought as a
bundle with mobile voice, carriers may use the phone plans to cross-subsidize their data plans in some
countries.

Given these issues, meaningful international comparisons of mobile pricing are extremely difficult.
Below we compare mobile pricing focusing on just the broadband segment of mobile plans, and using
the price per GB of data as the metric. These data should be taken with extreme caution, however. It is
often impossible to value how much a GB of data is worth in a country when promotions are in terms
of increasing usage limits. For example, in Australia, a smartphone plan by Vodafone has 0.5 GB
usage limit, but infinite access to certain social networking sites, e.g. Facebook, while an Optus plan
may have a 2 GB peak, 4 GB off-peak data limit, but unlimited access to certain unmetered sites,
including Facebook and the carrier specific email account.34 In these cases when we treat the usage
limit as 0.5 GB for Vodafone or 3 GB for Optus, we may be inflating the price paid per GB of data.
The same argument holds true for some plans in the United States such as T-Mobile’s ―Classic—
Overage-Free Ultra‖ plan, where there is a usage limit of 10 GB, but instead of charging overage fees
for exceeding the cap, T-Mobile reduces users’ speeds. Additionally, usage patterns matter if we think
about a volume-adjusted price, i.e. instead of diving the price by the usage limit, we divide price by the
usage (or amount of data used). In that case, two countries may have very different GB limits but the
same effective price (or volume-adjusted price) given different usage.

In addition, the comparisons below do not account for differences in speeds offered in different
countries, nor were we able to account for device discounts. Given these and other limitations, the data
should be treated with care. We nevertheless provide this detailed data on mobile broadband plans as
an initial step for future analysis.

Commission’s Web Harvest Data

For the first time, Commission staff has compiled a dataset of publicly available advertised pricing
information for mobile broadband services in 38 countries (including the United States), most of which
are members of the OECD. Staff collected this pricing information between October 2011 and
February 2012.35 The dataset includes information on advertised monthly recurring charges and

32 Polkomtel, iPlus 20 GB w/out night/morning limit (4G Plan) Plan; PTK Centertel (Orange), Orange Free Z 19
Plan (3G HSPDA+).
33 Verizon 4G Smartphone plan 8, AT&T LG Phoenix (3G)
34 Vodafone Infinite 500M, Optus Data Cap 2
35 We assembled the data by visiting the websites of broadband providers serving the countries and communities
in our sample. In order to mitigate the effects of variations in a particular broadband provider’s prices over time,
we visited the websites of providers and downloaded the relevant information at one specific point in time. Thus,
data was collected between October 2011 and February 2012. Our price data reflects only what a given provider
was offering at the specific point in time we accessed its website. For some countries in the dataset, we were able
to determine whether the offerings were on a national or community level. Many advertised offerings were
national in scope, though some were listed for particular cities or on an ―as available‖ basis. Because we obtained
the information for the dataset at specific points in time, we were not able to determine which offers are regularly
15


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


nonrecurring charges such as connection fees for four types of device (smartphones, stick modems,
tablets and netbooks), to allow for a more complete pricing analysis of each mobile broadband offering.
We have fairly complete information on 1,765 mobile plans for the 38 countries, out of which 100 are
United States plans. There are 857 smart phone plans, 531 stick modem plans, 289 tablet plans, and 88
netbook plans.

The dataset also includes promotional discounts and rebates such as those associated with online sign-
up and longer service contracts, and the duration of those promotions. Additionally, information on
device charges (such as the cost of a smart phone or modem) is also included. This allows for a more
nuanced analysis of the price that a customer pays for a mobile broadband plan. The dataset includes
upload and download speeds,36 limitations on data usage, and information on the type of technology,
i.e. whether it is 3G, 3.5G, GSM, 4G and so on.37 Additionally, the usage limits on each plan and the
consequences of reaching that usage limit are reported, such as the extra charge customers may incur,
or whether they experience a slowdown of their speeds. The dataset also shows whether the broadband
belongs to a bundle, i.e. includes mobile voice.

To compare prices across countries, we first construct an annual or monthly price that reflects all the
rebates, charges and fees associated with each plan. To accomplish this, we calculate what the
customer pays over the life of the contract, using the formula discussed earlier in the report for fixed
broadband prices.38 We do not include the device charges, or the monthly phone plan charges that
accompany the data plan in the calculation. To the extent that the plan includes a subsidized device,
such an approach will mean that the price for the broadband service will include sufficient margin to
repay that subsidy – i.e., the price for bandwidth will appear more expensive. We then calculate the
monthly net price by dividing it by the length of the contract. Next, we convert all prices to U.S.
dollars based on both purchasing power parity (PPP) and current exchange rates. For reasons discussed
earlier, we use the PPP conversions for the following analyses.
Comparing the Average Net Price of Monthly Plans
The price data for mobile broadband plans is complex and the data plans vary by the type of device.
One important metric however, is the amount of data included in a plan. Therefore, for mobile
broadband, we compare the net price per gigabyte of data, i.e. the price for total capacity (before hitting
a penalty rather than a price per bit consumed) for four device types – smartphones, stick modems,
tablets and netbooks. Plans that are advertised as unlimited data plans but that have customer speeds
slowed down after a certain data limit is reached are classified as plans with usage limits. For example,
the ―Unlimited Mobiilinet M‖ plan by Tele 2 Estonia states that the particular plan is unlimited –
however, there is a reasonable use policy in place and after reaching 30 GB, download speed is reduced
to 200 Kbps and upload speed is reduced to 64 Kbps. The usage limit in this case would be 30 GB.
Only those ―unlimited‖ plans that have no overages or speed slowdowns are classified as truly
unlimited. For unlimited plans we present the monthly average price and not the price per GB metric.

available and which are significant departures from regularly available offers. Therefore, while ideally we would
include only widely and regularly available offerings, it is possible we captured information on some non-
standard offers such as special, promotional, or other limited offers.
36 In some cases, providers did not indicate upload speeds on their websites.
37 We probably only collect ―the best‖ advertised technology and that the technology actually in use by any
customer at any time depends on a number of factors (e.g., location, spectrum band, network congestion) – so
someone on a 4G plan could easily spend most of their time using the 3G network.
38 Net price for the contract term = (promotional price * number of months promotion lasts) + (standard price *
(contract term – number of months promotion lasts)) + installation fee + activation fee + modem rental charge +
other fees (incl. line charges) – rebates.
16


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Figures 7a-10a shows the net price per gigabyte of data for plans with usage limits, and Figures 7b-10b
reports the average monthly net price for unlimited data plans.

100

Figure 7a

Average Monthly Net Price per GB of Data 2011

90

Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits

80
70
($PPP/GB)
60
Data

50
of
40
GB
30
per
20
Price
10
0

Note: Belgium does not have any limited data plans in the sample. Japan charges by the amount of
packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet = 128 bytes according to the advertised plan. These prices are for
the data plan only and do not include the price of the phone plan or device charge.

The net price per GB for an ―average‖ smartphone plan with usage limits are presented in Figure and
Appendix Table 7a.39 We find that the United States is among the ten cheapest countries for
smartphone data plans with usage limits, with an average price of $10/GB. Iceland, Finland and
Germany are the three lowest price countries with an average price of $5/GB. Figure 7b and Appendix
Table 7b show the net price for unlimited data plans, Finland is the cheapest country ($5.08) and
Portugal is the most expensive ($148.99). The United States lies in the middle with $52.50.


39 Most Japanese plans in the data set charge by the amounts of packets sent and not by gigabyte of data use. We
use 1 packet = 128 bytes to convert the number of packets into gigabytes. The phone company website provides
this information. See: http://www.au.kddi.com/english/packetwin/service/waribiki.html.
17


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334



Figure 7b

160

Average Monthly Net Price 2011

140

Smartphone Data Plans with No Usage Limits

P)
$PP 120
(

ce 100
Pri

y
hl
80
ont
60
e M
ag
40
er
v
A
20
0

Note: Belgium does not have any unlimited data plans in the sample. The above net prices are for the
data plan only and do not include the price of the phone plan or device charge. Countries not listed in
Figure 7b do not have unlimited data plans in the sample.


Figure 8a and Appendix Table 8a shows that for stick modem data plans, Finland, Austria and Sweden
have the lowest prices, with an average of $2/GB. Excluding Japan, the three most expensive countries
are Canada, France and Hong Kong, with an average price of over $17/GB. Japan is the most
expensive country in our sample with an average price of $62.38/GB for modem plans. The United
States is 24th out of 34 countries, with an average price of $9.80/GB. Figure 8b and Appendix Table 8b
show that for plans with no usage limits, Luxembourg is the cheapest country ($18.53) and Japan is the
most expensive ($97.31). The United States does not have any unlimited data plans for stick modems in
the sample.


18


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


) 20

Figure 8a

GB 18

Average Monthly Net Price per GB of Data 2011

P/ 16

Stick Modem Data Plans with Usage Limits

14
$PP
( 12
a 10
Dat
8
of
6
4
GB

r
2
pe

0
ce
i
Pr
Note: Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet = 128 bytes as mentioned in
their plan and it is the most expensive. We exclude Japan from the graph due to this extreme value.
These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the stick modem or other rental
charges. Countries not listed in Figure 8a do not have stick modem plans with usage limits in our
sample.

Figure 8b

100
)
P

Average Monthly Net Price 2011

90
P
P

Stick Modem Data Plans with No Usage Limits

$
(
80


e
c
70
i
r
P

t
60
e
N

50
y
l
h
t
40
n
o
30
M

e
20
g
a
r
e
10
v
A
0
rg
d
ia
d
re
ia
ia
d
s
d
al
ia
g
d
u
n
o
ay
en
d
ark
ria
g
n
lic
an
o
o
lan
ak
an
ralia
st
en
o
b
lan
p
b
Italy
ap
rw
ed
o
v
u
st
m
reece
u
rtu
v

K
u
o
Ja
Est
in
g
lo
th
u
Irelan
w
erlan
en
G
Icelan
A
o
lo
g
ep
P
em
F
in
N
S
P
S
n
x
itzerlan
S
A
D
w
S
Li
eth
o

R
Lu
S
N
H
zechC
Note: The prices above are for the data plan only, and do not include the price of the stick modem or
other rental charges. Countries not listed in Figure 8b do not have unlimited stick modem plans in our
sample.

19


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Figures 9a-9b and Appendix Tables 9a-9b present the results for tablet data plans. Denmark and
Australia are the cheapest countries with a price of $2/GB for plans with usage limits and Hong Kong
and Japan are the most expensive. The United States is in the middle with a price of $10.90/GB. For
unlimited data plans, Figure 9b and Appendix Table 9b, show Finland being the least expensive
countries ($13.37), with Poland and Japan as the most expensive at $79.12 and $97.31 respectively.
The United States does not have any unlimited data plans for tablets.

120

Figure 9a


Average Monthly Net Price per GB of Data 2011

a
100
t
a

Tablet Data Plans with Usage Limits

D
80
of
B)
B
G
/
60
G
P
r
P
40
pe

e
($P
c
20
ri
P
0
d
ia d
rg d m y
s
ia
al
a d
g
ark
en ria
u
o
d
n
an ain
lic
ile
ey
an
b
ary h g rea
ico
aria ael ad
p
o
m ralia
ed st an lan Italy o
d
p
ak tates g
o rk
st
u
u o
b
g
S
u v
n C rtu K
ex reece lg Isr an alan Ja K
en u Irelan wS A th P
in erm
erlan ep lo S u
o
Tu M G u
C
g
D A
n
Li
em
H
P
B

Ze
x
itzerlan
G
S
w K
eth R
ited
o
Lu S
N
n
ew
H
ited
U
N
n
zech
U
C

Note: Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet = 128 bytes as mentioned in their
plan and it is the most expensive. The prices noted are for the data plan only and do not include the device charge.
Countries not listed in Figure 9a do not have tablet plans with usage limits in our sample.

Figure 9b

100

Average Monthly Net Price per GB of Data 2011


a
t
80
a

Tablet Data Plans with No Usage Limits

D

f
)
60
o

B
B
G
/
40
G

P
r
P
e
P
p
$
20

e
(
c
i
r
0
P
d
d
rg
ia
al
re
s
d
u
en
g
o
ria
d
an
lan
o
Italy
ed
ak
st
lan
p
in
b
w
v
rtu
ap
u
o
Ja
F
lo
o
g
A
erlan
P
itzerlan
em
S
S
P
in
w
x
S
eth
S
Lu
N

Note: The prices noted are for the data plan only, and do not include the device charge. For unlimited plans, we
assume the usage limit to be 30 GB when calculating the per GB price. The download speed numbers are for the
highest possible advertised speeds listed on the plan Countries not listed in Figure 9b do not have tablet plans
with unlimited data in our sample.
20


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


There are some netbook plans for some countries, although the data is sparse. Figures 10a-10b and
Appendix Tables 10a-10b present this data. We find that Denmark is the least expensive country for
plans with usage limits, while Italy is the least expensive for unlimited data plans. The U.S. price is
consistent with earlier findings and is around $10/GB.

70

Figure 10a

Average Monthly Net Price per GB of Data 2011


60
a
t

Netbook Data Plans with Usage Limits

a
50
D
f
)
o
B
G
40
B
/
G
P
r
P
30
e
P
p
$
e
(
20
c
i
r
P
10
0
k
a
a
y
g
y
y
l
n
ar
ria
nd
ea
es
co
oni
or
xi
pa
ust
rland
Ital
tat
bour
K
Israe
Ja
enm
Est
A
ingdom
huani
Pola
ungar
Turke
Me
D
Lit
itze
ted S
H
Sw
ni
ted K
Luxem
U
niU

Note: Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet = 128 bytes according to the
advertised plan, and it is the most expensive. These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the
device charge. Countries not listed in Figure 10a do not have netbook plans with usage limits in our sample.


Figure 10b


100

Average Monthly Net Price 2011

y
l
)
h
P
80
t

Netbook Data Plans with No Usage Limits

n
P
o
P
$
60
M
(


e
e
c
40
g
i
a
r
r
P
e

t
20
v
e
A
N
0
rg
d
u
an
Italy
o
p
b
Ja
emx
itzerlan
w
Lu
S

Note: The prices noted are for the data plan only, and do not include the device charge. Countries not
listed in Figure 8b do not have netbook plans with no usage limits in our sample.



21


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Conclusion


This pricing section presents data from an unprecedented sample of fixed and mobile price offers from
38 countries. From the analysis of the data, we have concluded that the United States is in the mid-
price range of countries, whether we compare by speed tier or price per gigabyte of data, for fixed
residential broadband. For mobile broadband, particularly for smartphone plans, the United States is
one of the ten least expensive countries in terms of price per gigabyte of data. In future work, with
more granular data, a more systematic quality adjusted price index could be developed, allowing for
better international comparison.


22


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 1a

Number of Total, Unbundled and Bundled Broadband Plans 2011

Total Number
Number of
Number of
Number of
Number of
of Plans in the
Naked
Double
Triple Play
Quad Play
Country
Sample
Broadband Plans
Play Plans
Plans
Plans
Australia
90
48
32
10
Austria
27
11
13
3
Belgium
16
12
4


Bulgaria
24
13
5
6
Canada
31
27
2
2
Chile
37
16
11
10
Czech Republic
40
31
7
2
Denmark
38
9
27
2
Estonia
27
13
5
9
Finland
24
23
1


France
15
3

12
Germany
26
7
18
1
Greece
15
5
6
4
Hong Kong
28
28



Hungary
16
9

7
Iceland
14
14



Ireland
43
21
22


Israel
30
26

1
3
Italy
30
2
22
6
Japan
52
47
5


Korea
130
56
45
29
Lithuania
67
67



Luxembourg
64
24
9
31
Mexico
27
5
15
7
New Zealand
37
5
31
1
Norway
42
34
6
2
Poland
89
40
11
25
13
Portugal
31
8
5
15
3
Singapore
105
5
50
50
Slovakia
42
12
14
16
Slovenia
75
43
1
31
Spain
22
10
12
Sweden
40
12
21
4
3
Switzerland
51
25
7
10
9
The Netherlands
38
11
3
24
Turkey
41
28
9
4
United Kingdom
34
1
12
15
6
United States
113
58
33
22
Total
1,671
799
462
373
37
1



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 1b

Average Monthly Net Price of a Broadband Package in US Dollars


(PPP and Exchange Rate Conversion)

Country

Price $ (PPP)

Price $ (Ex. Rate)

Rank (PPP) Rank (Ex. Rate)

Germany
32.63
35.91
1
8
Korea
32.96
23.08
2
1
Estonia
33.25
26.07
3
2
Sweden
34.92
45.38
4
14
France
35.78
42.51
5
13
Italy
36.09
41.54
6
11
Finland
38.07
48.66
7
18
Iceland
39.12
42.00
8
12
Japan
41.85
50.93
9
19
Denmark
43.09
67.43
10
30
Czech Republic
43.62
31.70
11
3
Israel
44.31
45.45
12
15
Austria
45.07
51.04
13
20
United Kingdom
45.98
48.31
14
17
Slovakia
46.68
33.45
15
5
The Netherlands
46.93
53.46
16
23
Turkey
47.05
37.25
17
10
Hong Kong
47.11
32.92
18
4
Belgium
48.24
57.76
19
24
Greece
49.83
47.12
20
16
Hungary
50.06
34.74
21
6
Poland
54.16
35.06
22
7
Luxembourg
54.73
73.94
23
35
Norway
55.19
91.38
24
37
Portugal
56.68
51.95
25
21
Ireland
57.34
66.00
26
29
Canada
59.36
70.75
27
34
Spain
59.41
60.59
28
26
Australia
60.85
70.07
29
33
New Zealand
61.04
69.42
30
31
United States
69.75
69.75
31
32
Lithuania
71.47
77.50
32
36
Slovenia
71.80
59.82
33
25
Bulgaria
72.08
36.07
34
9
Chile
78.83
63.06
35
27
Mexico
78.93
52.98
36
22
Singapore
89.48
64.41
37
28
Switzerland
119.38
190.48
38
38
Note: The monthly cost reflects the price per month, rebates, installation charges, equipment charges such as modem
rentals and other fees. So this is different from the simple monthly advertised price.
2



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 2a

Average Monthly Net Price of a Standalone Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Technology 2011

Advertised Download Speed between 1 – 5 Mbps


Average

Download

Country All

*

DSL Cable

Fiber


Hybrid Satellite Speed

Hong Kong
21.50

21.50


1.50
Poland
22.51
28.22
16.79



1.75
The
Netherlands
23.20
23.20



5.00
Israel
24.09
20.63
26.00
25.64


3.33
Slovakia
24.21

24.21


2.00
Greece
26.41
26.41




2.00
Canada
26.86
26.86



1.50
Estonia
27.03
27.03

27.03


5.00
Czech
Republic
27.81
34.81
19.81
28.82


1.33
Hungary
28.18
28.18




2.95
Finland
29.19
30.78
27.59



2.17
Ireland
29.64
27.64

31.64


2.17
Japan
32.92
37.95


27.90
1.13
United States
34.93
34.12
42.30

29.99
84.32
2.78
Turkey
35.78
35.78




2.67
Luxembourg
36.32
36.32




5.00
Mexico
37.76
37.76



3.00
Belgium
38.21
38.21




2.50
Slovenia
42.66
43.72
33.39
50.87


2.94
Australia
45.67
45.67




3.25
Norway
49.02
56.04

34.98


2.15
Chile
49.18
49.18




2.17
Lithuania
81.90
81.90




3.82
Switzerland
119.33
167.24

23.49


4.00
Portugal





26.13

Germany





58.10

Note: The monthly cost reflects the price per month, rebates, installation charges, equipment charges such as modem
rentals and other fees. So this is different from the simple monthly advertised price. Spain did not have any naked
broadband plans in the sample. ‘*’ The simple average is calculated by excluding satellite








3



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 2b

Average Monthly Net Price of a Standalone Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Technology 2011

Advertised Download Speed between 5 – 15 Mbps


Average

Down

Country

All *

DSL

Cable

Fiber


Hybrid

Satellite

Speed

Slovakia
20.56

20.56


10.00
Italy
21.86

21.86


10.00
Bulgaria
23.05
27.06
19.03


246.62
15.00
Sweden
25.74
25.34
26.13



7.75
The Netherlands
27.13
27.13




8.00
Austria
27.76
21.06
34.46



9.03
Korea
30.62


30.62

10.00
Israel
31.83
30.74
29.91
34.85


11.83
Poland
31.91
36.71
29.46
29.56


9.38
Finland
32.46
35.76
34.79
26.84


9.67
Denmark
32.84
42.04
23.63


12.50
Hungary
34.40
51.46

17.33


11.25
Luxembourg
37.31
41.26

29.41


11.67
Iceland
38.00
38.00




11.40
Canada
38.30
44.48
32.13


8.00
Ireland
38.58
40.46

36.70

95.49
8.03
Czech Republic
40.69
64.37
33.76
23.95


10.00
Turkey
42.52
48.07

36.97


8.86
Japan
42.76
48.26


37.26

11.00
Singapore
43.04
43.04



10.00
United States
43.71
40.84
44.75
54.99
39.99

10.52
Slovenia
45.53
59.22
42.39
34.98


9.81
Norway
46.02
41.31

50.73


9.29
Belgium
49.10
50.89
45.54



12.00
Australia
50.35
59.59
47.56
43.90


9.33
Hong Kong
52.25
79.91
47.06
29.79


9.33
Chile
52.30
52.30




10.25
Lithuania
52.97
98.35

7.60


8.37
New Zealand
53.65
53.65



15.00
Mexico
95.59
95.59



7.00
Switzerland
185.10
185.10




9.25
Portugal





52.67
Note: The monthly cost reflects the price per month, rebates, installation charges, equipment charges such as modem
rentals and other fees. So this is different from the simple monthly advertised price. Spain did not have any naked
broadband plans in the sample. ‘*’ The simple average is calculated by excluding satellite


4



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 2c

Average Monthly Net Price of a Standalone Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Technology 2011

Advertised Download Speed between 15 – 25 Mbps

Average

Down

Country

All *

DSL

Cable

Fiber


Hybrid

Satellite

Speed






Slovakia
17.91

17.91


25.00
Korea
19.25


19.25

20.00
Italy
21.86
21.86




20.00
Hungary
22.18

22.18


25.00
France
23.41
23.41




20.00
United Kingdom
28.68
28.68




20.00
The Netherlands
30.68
38.76
31.49
21.80


21.67
Turkey
30.85
39.68

22.02


18.50
Bulgaria
31.46
33.83

29.09


20.00
Sweden
32.76
32.98
32.53



19.25
Estonia
33.78
33.78




20.00
Poland
34.68
36.88
32.46
34.69


21.67
Greece
35.08
35.08




24.00
Germany
35.28
35.28




16.00
Austria
39.86
26.49
53.24



19.44
Denmark
41.06
33.95
48.17



20.00
Canada
41.91
37.44
46.38


22.75
Norway
42.80
35.73

56.96


20.39
Belgium
43.32
43.32



22.50
Israel
44.29
61.25
35.12
36.51


20.00
Czech Republic
46.32
54.53

29.89


21.63
Hong Kong
49.06

49.06


18.00
Australia
50.51
55.54

45.48


23.23
Finland
50.89
50.89




22.00
Ireland
52.12
54.16

50.08


24.17
United States
56.50
49.12
59.27
74.99
49.99

21.45
Iceland
58.62
58.62




16.00
Slovenia
59.53
70.48
63.59
44.52


20.00
Chile
61.24
61.24




20.00
Luxembourg
71.48
71.48




21.33
New Zealand
124.53
124.53



25.00
Switzerland
179.61
242.89

116.34


20.83
Note: The monthly cost reflects the price per month, rebates, installation charges, equipment charges such as modem
rentals and other fees. So this is different from the simple monthly advertised price. Spain did not have any naked
broadband plans in the sample. ‘*” – The simple average is calculated by excluding satellite

5



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 3a

Average Monthly Net Price of a Double Phone DSL Broadband Plan ($ PPP) with Unlimited Local

and National Calling (Broadband Download Speed 1 – 25 Mbps) 2011

Country

Monthly Net Price ($PPP)

Sweden 18.40
Germany 36.02
Italy 37.82
Denmark 42.09
Austria 42.28
Belgium 44.25
United Kingdom
47.98
New Zealand
55.45
Spain 59.75
United States
61.82
Australia 62.55
Greece 65.28
Ireland 67.88
Luxembourg 72.19
Chile 81.52
Mexico 94.21
Singapore 139.00



6



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334


Appendix Table 3b

Average Monthly Net Price of a Double Phone Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Speed Tier 2011



1-5 Mbps
5-15 Mbps
15-25 Mbps

Country $PPP

$PPP
$PPP
Australia 57.24
66.45
62.55
Austria

35.95
53.28
Belgium 42.97
53.47


Bulgaria

40.51

Chile 83.27
75.92


Czech Republic


32.06
Denmark 26.59
31.63
42.2
Estonia 23.63
37.15


Germany 33.02
26.17
23.32
Greece


51.91
Ireland 57.98
55.27
71.9
Italy 25.45
36.2
38.85
Japan

20.04

Korea

26.56
Luxembourg 25.49
44.12
70.67
Mexico 69.21
101.28
138.42
New Zealand

45.01

Norway 13.31
7.89
Poland 45.6
49.44
43.87
Portugal

21.66
28.89
Singapore 32.92
41.86
59.22
Slovakia 22.08
41.03
44.94
Spain

41.75
39.55
Sweden 25.05
24.33
18.4
Switzerland 24.99

43.18
The Netherlands


26.16
Turkey 32.77

44.57
United Kingdom


42.06
United States
51.56
63.08
73.52







7



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334


Appendix Table 3c

Average Monthly Net Price of a Double Video Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Speed Tier 2011



1-5 Mbps
5-15 Mbps
15-25 Mbps

Country $PPP

$PPP
$PPP
Austria

25.73

Bulgaria

29.5
29.5
Chile
68.54


Czech Republic
28.68

52.83
Denmark

22.61
28.29
Germany


44.26
Italy


26.47
Luxembourg



Mexico 56.59
93.41
131.54
The Netherlands


42.64
New Zealand

41.49

Poland 60.92
64.76
52.03
Slovakia



United States
54.91
87.93
105.99

8



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334


Appendix Table 3d

Average Monthly Net Price of a Triple Play Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Speed Tier 2011



1-5 Mbps
5-15 Mbps
15-25 Mbps

Country $PPP

$PPP
$PPP
Australia


77.28
Austria

48.13
55.31
Bulgaria

34.3
34.91
Canada



Chile 96.34
110.21

Czech Republic


53.67
Denmark


52.91
Estonia 25.32
38.83


France


37.24
Germany


38.29
Greece 63.49

75.46
Hungary

66.71
64.71
Israel
76.92

Italy
46.12
44.88
Korea

34.32
Luxembourg 35.64
45.98
54.8
Mexico 73.05
124.66
173.99
New Zealand

56.87
Norway


12.89
Poland 37.51
72
62.35
Portugal

51.42
21.67
Singapore

42.96
60.16
Slovakia 57.24

48.83
Slovenia 63.26
73.13
79.49
Spain

57.09
66.17
Sweden

34.92

Switzerland 41.47
58.06
55.07
The Netherlands

45.47
53.03
Turkey
62.19


United Kingdom


45.07
United States
86.87
118.2
95.97

9



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334


Appendix Table 4a

Average Monthly Net Price per GB of Data ($ PPP/GB) 2011

Plans with Hard Data Caps


Monthly Net Price

Monthly Net Price


Country

per GB ($PPP/GB)

Country

per GB ($PPP/GB)


Denmark
0.2
Slovakia
7.96

Estonia
0.68
Portugal
9.35

United States
0.76
Austria
11.41

Canada
1.67
Turkey
12.40


United Kingdom
3.25
Belgium
12.86

Australia
3.29
New Zealand
19.31

Iceland
3.91
Sweden
24.06


Luxembourg
4.49
Bulgaria
25.77


Appendix Table 4b

Average Monthly Net Price ($ PPP) 2011

Plans with No Usage Limits


Monthly Net

Monthly Net

Country

Price ($PPP)

Country

Price ($PPP)

Sweden
31.68
United Kingdom
53.70
Estonia
32.43
Poland
54.16
Germany
32.63
Luxembourg
54.89
Korea
32.96
Norway
55.19
France
35.78
Ireland
57.34
Italy
36.09
Spain
59.41
Bulgaria
37.18
Portugal
60.09
Finland
38.07
Czech Republic
61.05
Japan
41.85
Lithuania
71.47
Denmark
43.38
United States
73.06
Israel
44.31
Australia
76.52
The Netherlands
46.93
Chile
78.83
Hong Kong
47.11
Mexico
78.93
Slovakia
49.04
Singapore
89.48
Greece
49.83
Turkey
93.00
Hungary
50.06
Slovenia
101.68
Belgium
50.14
Canada
102.38
Austria
52.52
Switzerland
151.31

10



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 5

Average Price (US$) per Mbps of Download Speed by Country

Country

$/Mbps 2010
$/Mbps 2011
Bulgaria 0.67
0.69
Lithuania 1.74
1.33
Slovakia 3.32
2.03
Hungary 2.51
2.16
Hong Kong

2.31
Czech Republic
2.85
2.96
Poland

3.15
Iceland

3.30
Netherlands 3.41
3.41
Israel

3.51
Germany 2.67
3.54
United Kingdom
3.60
3.54
Denmark 3.45
3.59
Switzerland 3.54
3.91
Sweden 5.29
4.48
Finland 3.99
4.49
Austria 4.75
4.55
Singapore

5.01
Estonia

5.02
Slovenia

5.36
France

5.40
Belgium 6.46
5.61
Turkey

5.77
Greece

5.87
United States
6.75
6.14
Norway 6.44
6.21
Canada 6.43
6.22
Portugal 6.78
6.43
Ireland

7.02
Italy

7.06
Spain

8.13
New Zealand

9.30
Chile

11.25
Australia 11.84
11.60
Mexico

12.80
Source: Value Index from the Net Index database provided by Ookla. Japan and South
Korea are not in this dataset.
11



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 6

Average Weighted Price (US$) per Mbps of Download Speed 2011 By U.S. States and

International Countries


Lowest 25th Price

Middle 50 Percent

Highest 25th Price

Percentile

Percentile

Price

Price

Price

Price

(US$)/
(US$)/
(US$)/
(US$)/

Country

Mbps

Country

Mbps

Country

Mbps

Country

Mbps

Bulgaria
0.69 Kentucky
4.62
Nebraska
5.78
Idaho
7.83
Lithuania
1.33 New York
4.80
Kansas
5.80
Maryland
8.06
Slovakia
2.03 Minnesota
4.87
Texas
5.85
Illinois
8.06
Hungary
2.16 Oregon
4.91
Greece
5.87
North Dakota
8.13
Hong Kong
2.31 Arizona
4.92
Utah
5.93
Michigan
8.13
South
Dakota
2.36 Singapore
5.01
Oklahoma
6.05
Spain
8.13
Delaware
2.91 Estonia
5.02
Norway
6.21
New Mexico
8.37
Czech
Republic
2.96 Washington
5.02
Canada
6.22
Iowa
8.40
Poland
3.15 Florida
5.15
New Jersey
6.25
Montana
8.74
South
Iceland
3.30 Carolina
5.17
California
6.32
Massachusetts
9.10
Netherlands
3.41 Colorado
5.20
Nevada
6.34
Pennsylvania
9.27
Israel
3.51 Wyoming
5.24
Portugal
6.43
New Zealand
9.30
Germany
3.54 Wisconsin
5.28
Louisiana
6.44
West Virginia
9.36
United
New
Kingdom
3.54 Slovenia
5.36
Alabama
6.44
Hampshire
10.78
Denmark
3.59 Connecticut
5.39
Hawaii
6.48
Chile
11.25
Rhode
Island
3.66 France
5.40
Indiana
6.99
Mississippi
11.51
Switzerland
3.91 Georgia
5.47
Ireland
7.02
Australia
11.60
Sweden
4.48 Tennessee
5.48
Italy
7.06
Alaska
11.71
District of
Finland
4.49 Belgium
5.61
Ohio
7.19
Columbia
11.75
North
Virginia
4.51 Carolina
5.62
Arkansas
7.21
Maine
12.03
Austria
4.55 Turkey
5.77
Missouri
7.50
Mexico
12.80
Note: The table is based on the Ookla Value Index data. We create a weighted average price by using the number
of tests/surveys as the weights for each median price reported by Ookla, and then taking the average over all
cities and dates to create an annual average weighted price.

12



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 7a

Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits 2011


Price per GB of

Average Price per

Average Data

Download Speed

Country

Data ($PPP/GB)

Month ($PPP)

Cap (GB)

(Mbps)
Iceland
4.29
11.86
2.77
7.20
Germany
5.29
43.03
8.13
17.73
Denmark
5.37
28.17
5.25
15.00
Singapore
5.67
35.44
6.25
7.20
Slovenia
7.60
17.81
2.34
21.37
Sweden
7.64
37.72
4.94
9.19
Luxembourg
8.45
20.59
2.44
7.20
Austria
8.52
30.40
3.57
17.83
United States
10.40
54.82
5.27
6.41
Turkey
10.72
20.86
1.95
11.12
Poland
11.87
35.79
3.01
46.44
Slovakia
11.92
15.49
1.30
17.31
Hungary
16.31
52.44
3.22
8.87
Australia
18.02
34.32
1.90
7.23
Hong Kong
19.95
44.70
2.24
60.36
Lithuania
20.19
22.56
1.12
7.35
Ireland
20.56
56.76
2.76
10.74
Italy
21.72
49.54
2.28
17.28
Czech Republic
22.96
18.65
0.81
11.90
Finland
23.07
25.03
1.09
16.00
Chile
23.89
101.52
4.25
Korea
27.72
51.30
1.85
Norway
28.05
32.33
1.15
36.67
Spain
28.96
46.24
1.60
5.30
Canada
29.16
56.49
1.94
66.75
France
29.64
32.01
1.08
14.40
Estonia
35.84
23.75
0.66
21.60
Switzerland
51.31
29.32
0.57
Bulgaria
52.06
42.12
0.81
24.32
New Zealand
58.91
50.08
0.85
7.30
United Kingdom
60.36
39.15
0.65
5.54
Israel
61.35
66.47
1.08
7.20
Netherlands
65.41
73.04
1.12
9.26
Portugal
71.74
52.61
0.73
59.93
Greece
91.76
93.14
1.02
28.20
Mexico
94.73
76.67
0.81
4.53
Japan
606.92
10.02
0.02
7.20
Note: Belgium does not have any limited data plans in the sample. Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so
we assumed 1 packet=128 bytes. These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the phone
plan or device charge. The download speed numbers are for the highest possible advertised speeds listed on the plan.

13



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334



Appendix Table 7b

Smartphone Data Plans Without Usage Limits 2011


Average Price per

Download Speed

Country

Month ($PPP)

(Mbps)
Finland
5.08
0.50
Sweden
29.38
16.00
Lithuania
40.19
21.60
United Kingdom
40.20
3.90
Switzerland
40.36

Slovakia
42.83
14.16
Luxembourg
42.89

Japan
48.66
7.20
Spain
49.50
15.90
Estonia
52.22
5.60
United States
52.50
6.70
Korea
63.63

Italy
65.02
14.40
Ireland
68.41
7.20
Hungary
73.02
60.00
Poland
81.97
100.00
Hong Kong
95.60
100.00
Singapore
131.71
14.10
Portugal
148.99
7.20
Note: Belgium does not have any unlimited data plans in the sample. These prices are for
the data plan only and do not include the price of the phone plan or device charge. For
unlimited plans, we assume the data cap to be 30GB when calculating the per GB price.
The download speed numbers are for the highest possible advertised speeds listed on the plan.















14



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 8a

Stick Modem Data Plans With Usage Limits 2011


Price per GB of Data

Average Price per

Average Data

Download

Country

($PPP/GB)

Month ($PPP)

Cap (GB)

Speed (Mbps)

Finland
1.42
10.32
7.25
8.38
Austria
1.97
16.51
8.39
13.80
Sweden
2.01
19.59
9.75
16.66
Denmark
2.48
44.74
18.01
48.27
Iceland
2.57
17.96
7.00
7.20
Israel
3.10
31.03
10.00
7.20
Norway
3.19
19.43
6.09
13.21
Australia
3.23
30.26
9.36
22.67
Ireland
3.50
28.18
8.05
12.08
Italy
3.50
22.95
6.56
16.09
Estonia
3.97
59.62
15.00
38.85
Hungary
4.08
30.77
7.55
13.93
Poland
4.40
31.03
7.06
61.54
Slovakia
4.56
26.37
5.79
28.43
Korea
4.94
51.89
10.50
Slovenia
5.19
25.97
5.00
31.80
Germany
5.36
36.76
6.85
13.28
Lithuania
6.13
18.38
3.00
21.60
Switzerland
6.63
27.34
4.13
18.80
United Kingdom
6.78
21.96
3.24
9.37
Greece
7.37
31.14
4.23
29.47
Luxembourg
7.55
21.89
2.90
7.20
Portugal
9.75
27.23
2.79
2.62
United States
9.80
58.83
6.00
6.04
Czech Republic
10.25
32.63
3.18
6.50
Spain
10.45
32.22
3.08
8.17
Chile
10.79
62.21
5.77
8.95
New Zealand
11.03
34.84
3.16
7.40
Netherlands
12.52
24.40
1.95
7.76
Mexico
12.81
42.72
3.34
14.40
Turkey
14.40
43.88
3.05
13.13
Canada
17.29
38.19
2.21
64.00
Hong Kong
18.36
55.07
3.00
100.00
France
18.76
37.90
2.02
Japan
5466.01
97.31
0.02
7.20
Note: Belgium, Bulgaria and Singapore did not have any limited data plans in the sample. Japan charges by the
amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet=1000 bytes. These prices are for the data plan only and do not
include the price of the phone plan or device charge. The download speed numbers are for the highest possible
advertised speeds listed on the plan.

15



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 8b

Stick Modem Data Plans Without Usage Limits 2011


Average Price per

Download Speed

Country

Month ($PPP)

(Mbps)
Luxembourg
18.53
7.20
Switzerland
19.63

Estonia
20.60
3.67
Finland
21.25
35.38
Italy
22.05
21.60
Singapore
26.45
3.47
Norway
28.38
100.00
Slovakia
29.39
42.00
Lithuania
30.03
21.60
Australia
30.61
7.20
Ireland
30.68
14.23
Sweden
31.12
42.68
Netherlands
31.73
8.40
Denmark
34.16
80.00
Greece
34.87
7.20
Iceland
38.03
7.20
Austria
43.27
60.00
Portugal
45.51
20.36
Slovenia
54.05
21.60
Hong Kong
61.06
53.60
Czech Republic
61.16
21.60
Poland
73.09
55.33
Japan
97.31
7.20
Note: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Israel, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Spain, Turkey, UK and the US did not have
any unlimited data plans in the sample. Japan charges by the amount of packets
sent, so we assumed 1 packet=1000 bytes. These prices are for the data plan only and
do not include the price of the phone plan or device charge. For unlimited plans, we
assume the data cap to be 30GB when calculating the per GB price. The download
speed numbers are for the highest possible advertised speeds listed on the plan.










16



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334



Appendix Table 9a

Tablet Data Plans With Usage Limits 2011


Country

Price per GB of

Average Price per

Average Data

Download

Data ($PPP/GB)

Month ($PPP)

Cap (GB)

Speed (Mbps)

Denmark
1.73
17.74
10.28
6.80
Australia
2.10
21.34
10.14
7.62
Ireland
2.74
19.17
7.00
16.47
Sweden
2.74
13.45
4.90
10.15
Austria
3.02
34.76
11.50
8.60
Lithuania
3.57
14.29
4.00
7.20
Poland
4.12
53.51
13.00
22.50
Italy
4.62
24.37
5.27
15.13
Luxembourg
5.21
20.31
3.90
Switzerland
6.63
27.34
4.13
18.80
United Kingdom
7.06
26.48
3.75
4.65
Germany
7.09
48.58
6.85
13.28
Spain
9.10
36.20
3.98
15.15
Netherlands
9.93
17.68
1.78
9.84
Czech Republic
10.02
32.27
3.22
5.64
Slovakia
10.41
15.62
1.50
42.00
United States
10.91
48.04
4.40
5.81
Hungary
10.94
33.52
3.06
11.24
Chile
11.83
41.40
3.50
4.00
Portugal
12.47
20.78
1.67
11.90
Korea
13.54
39.72
2.93
Turkey
14.48
43.52
3.01
12.00
Mexico
14.93
38.40
2.57
7.20
Greece
18.67
18.67
1.00
42.20
Bulgaria
18.99
30.85
1.63
42.00
Israel
20.60
20.60
1.00
7.20
Canada
22.95
40.48
1.76
58.50
New Zealand
44.63
29.65
0.66
7.52
Hong Kong
109.97
54.98
0.50
Japan
5466.01
97.31
0.02
7.20
Note: Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Norway, Singapore and Slovenia did not have any limited data
plans in the sample. Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet=1000 bytes. These prices
are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the phone plan or device charge. The download speed
numbers are for the highest possible advertised speeds listed on the plan.


17



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334


Appendix Table 9b

Tablet Data Plans Without Usage Limits 2011


Average Price per

Download Speed

Country

Month ($PPP)

(Mbps)
Finland
13.37
15.00
Switzerland
17.73

Luxembourg
19.25

Italy
22.05
21.60
Sweden
27.38
34.25
Slovakia
29.39
42.00
Portugal
38.14
14.10
Singapore
38.22
7.20
Austria
39.85
10.00
Netherlands
46.27
8.40
Poland
79.12
24.00
Japan
97.31
7.20
Note: Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary,
Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Korea, Lithuania, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway,
Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, UK and the US did not have any unlimited data
plans in the sample. These prices are for the data plan only and do not
include the price of the phone plan or device charge. For unlimited plans,
we assume the data cap to be 30GB when calculating the per GB price. The
download speed numbers are for the highest possible advertised speeds
listed on the plan.








18



Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334


Appendix Table 10a

Netbook Data Plans with Data Caps 2011



Country

Price per GB of

Average Price per

Average Data

Download

Data ($PPP/GB)

Month ($PPP)

Cap (GB)

Speed (Mbps)

Denmark
1.56
15.60
10.00
7.00
Estonia
2.63
39.39
15.00
1.50
Austria
3.02
34.76
11.50
8.60
United Kingdom
3.12
46.79
15.00
13.30
Lithuania
3.57
14.29
4.00
7.20
Poland
5.07
71.00
14.00
42.00
Switzerland
5.93
30.65
5.17
18.80
Italy
6.90
27.62
4.00
11.25
Luxembourg
7.69
17.22
2.24
7.20
Korea
9.05
40.73
4.50
United States
9.14
63.99
7.00
7.30
Hungary
12.25
53.06
4.33
14.00
Turkey
14.40
43.88
3.05
13.13
Israel
20.60
20.60
1.00
Mexico
34.42
49.91
1.45
7.20
Japan
5466.01
97.31
0.02
7.20
Note: Only 16 out of the 38 countries have limited data plans in the sample. Japan charges by the amount of packets
sent, so we assumed 1 packet=1000 bytes. These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the
phone plan or device charge. The download speed numbers are for the highest possible advertised speeds listed on
the plan.

Appendix Table 10b

Netbook Data Plans with No Data Caps 2011


Country

Average Price per

Download Speed

Month ($PPP)

(Mbps)
Italy
22.05
7.20
Luxembourg
24.51

Switzerland
35.46

Japan
97.31
7.20
Note: Only 4 out of the 38 countries have any unlimited data plans in the sample.
Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet=1000 bytes.
These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the phone plan
or device charge. For unlimited plans, we assume the data cap to be 30GB when
calculating the per GB price. The download speed numbers are for the highest
possible advertised speeds listed on the plan.



19



Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


APPENDIX D: Demographics Dataset



Below is a concise version of the demographics dataset, containing only the most recent data available
for the countries surveyed. A complete version containing historical data going back several years is
available at http://www.fcc.gov/reports/international-broadband-data-report-third">http://www.fcc.gov/reports/international-broadband-data-report-third.


Population

GDP total

Education

GDP per

%
density
(US$m),
(% of
cap, PPP

Households Population

(avg

PPP

labor

Community

(purchasing
with

Total

population (purchasing
force with
power
broadband
per square
power
tertiary
parity)
meter)
parity)
education)

ALA0 Australia

73
22326388
3
864132
39369
23

ALA1 New South Wales
73
7232589
9
277443
38928
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bAUS%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">34
ALA2 Victoria
72 5545932
24
201108
36924
33

ALA3 Queensland
74
4513850
3
168190
38011
28
ALA4 South Australia
69 1644582
2
54467
33529
27

ALA5 Western Australia
75
2293510
1
117195
52216
31
ALA6 Tasmania
65 507643
8
15982
31755
25

ALA7 Northern Territory
73
229711
0
11839
52336
31

ALA8 Australian Capital
Territory

83 358571
153
17908
50833
47

AT0 Austria

72
8375290
102
324770
38870
20

AT11 Burgenland (A)
67
283965
78
7446
26301
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bAUT%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">16
AT12 Niederösterreich
74
1607976
85
51265
31938
16

AT13 Wien


74 1698822
4320
85127
50453
24

AT21 Kärnten
66
559315
60
18160
32394
17
AT22 Steiermark
67
1208372
74
40631
33650
16

AT31 Oberösterreich
73
1411238
121
54680
38769
16
AT32 Salzburg
73
529861
75
23443
44297
18

AT33 Tirol
69
706873
57
28817
40906
17
AT34 Vorarlberg
79
368868
146
15065
40985
16

BE0 Belgium

70
10839905
360
395970
36824
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bBEL%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">38

BE1 Région de Bruxelles-
Capitale/Brussels
Hoofdstedelijk Gewest
65 1089538
6861
75064
70249
45

BE21 Prov. Antwerpen
74
6251983
471
227124
36580
36
BE3 Région Wallonne
64
3498384
209
93563
26919
34

BG0 Bulgaria


7563710
69
46112
6072



BG3 Severna I iztochna
Bulgaria 32
3922971
58
17659
4488
No
Data

BG4 Yugozapadna I
yuzhna tsentralna Bulgaria

48 3640739
87
28453 7788
No
Data

Canada

70


1332626


CA1 Newfoundland And
Labrador
70 511281
1
23125
45230
36

CA2 Prince Edward Island
72
143395
25
4110
28659
47
CA3 Nova Scotia
69 944810
18
29819
31560
48

CA4 New Brunswick
65
752838
11
24155
32086
46
CA5 Quebec
65 7905679
6
261953
33135
49

CA6 Ontario

71
13227791
15
502414
37982
56
CA7 Manitoba
59 1234535
2
44506
36051
44

CA8 Saskatchewan
65
1044028
2
52134
49936
37
CA9 Alberta
71 3720928
6
216173
58097
45

CA10 British Columbia
75
4529674
5
166636
36788
47
Yukon Territory
No data
34559
0
1911
55304
No Data

Northwest Territories, and
Nunavut
No data
No data
No data
5292
No Data
No Data

Chile

39
16928873
23
177938
10511


CL01 Tarapaca
41
307426
7
8568
27871
No Data

CII Antofagasta
64
538432
5
14867
26154
No Data

CIII Atacama
36
278515
4
4496
16143
No Data

CIV Coquimbo
26
708369
18
5522
7795
No Data

CV Valparaiso
39
1739876
106
19111
10984
No Data

CVI O'Higgins
19
874806
53
8971
10255
No Data

CVII Maule
17
999685
33
8305
8308
No Data

CVIII Bio-Bio
31
2022995
55
21778 10765
No
Data

CIX Araucania
20
962120
30
5719
5945
No Data

CX Los Lagos
25
825830
17
10637
12880
No Data

CXI Aisen
22
103738
1
1444
13923
No Data

CXII Magallanes y
Anta(a)rtica 33
158111
1
2995
18943
No
Data

CRMS Santiago

51 6814630
442
105098
15422
No Data

CL14 Los Rios
26
378193
21
No Data
No Data
No Data

CL15 Arica Y Parinacota
53
186147
11
No Data
No Data
No Data

Cyprus

56
804435
87
22246
27852


CZ0 Czech Republic

63
10506813
137
268732
25673
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bCZE%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">16

CZ01 Praha


70
1257158
2627
67972
55118
32
CZ02 Strední Cechy
65 1264978
119
28427
23099
13

CZ03 Jihozápad
61
1210751
71
26717
22155
14
CZ04 Severozápad
58 1143489
135
23826
20821
7


2

CZ05 Severovýchod
67
1511909
124
31370
20816
12
CZ06 Jihovýchod
66 1669223
122
38707
23282
16

CZ07 Strední Morava
57
1232042
135
25380
20575
14
CZ08 Moravskoslezsko
61 1243220
234
26334
21063
12

DK0 Denmark

84
5534738
129
211487
38372
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bDNK%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">38

DK01 Hovedstaden

86 1680271
660
77383
46552
40
DK02 Sjælland
82
820564
113
22944 27938
28

DK03 Syddanmark
80 1200277
99
41012
34187
26
DK04 Midtjylland
85
1253998
96
44815 35917
30

DK05 Nordjylland
86 579628
73
19897
34275
26

Estonia

66
1340127
31
26526
19789


FI0 Finland

81
5351427
18
190561
35777
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bFIN%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">40
FI13 Itä-Suomi
78 652346
9
17366
26540
30

FI18 Etelä-Suomi

83
2672190
66
109414 41229
39

FI19 Länsi-Suomi
80 1355168
23
43320
32098
32
FI1A Pohjois-Suomi
80
643989
5
18954 29563
32

FI20 Åland
64
27734
18
1430
52099
28

France

70
64694497
103
2175064
33800
31

FR1 Île de France

77 11798427
986
646979
55081
41
FR2 Bassin Parisien
67
10743207
74
299251 27936
No
Data

FR3 Nord - Pas-de-Calais
65
4025605
324
110716 27527
27

FR4 Est
70
5379468
112
152203 28412
No
Data

FR5 Ouest
67
8534180
100
243813
28820
No Data

FR6 Sud-Ouest
73
6866219
66
202781 29794
No
Data

FR7 Centre-Est
67
7557252
108
246093
32799
No Data

FR8 Méditerranée
72
7894822
117
234073 29769
No
Data

FR 9 Departements d'outre-
mer
54
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data

DE0 Germany

75
81802257
229
2951421
35992
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bDEU%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">28
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
75
10753880
301
420143 39102
27

DE2 Bayern
75 12538696
178
521852
41714
26

DE3 Berlin


76
3460725
3895
113081 32847
34

DE4 Brandenburg
64 2503273
85
66755
26579
28
DE5 Bremen
No Data
660706
1633
32910 49734
24

DE6 Hamburg
78 1786448
2371
104081
58663
28
DE7 Hessen
79
6067021
287
265076 43728
26

DE8 Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern
57 1642327
70
43561
26381
24
DE9 Niedersachsen
81
7918293
166
253287 31945
21

DEA Nordrhein-Westfalen
79 17845154
522
643844
36024
22

3

DEB Rheinland-Pfalz
74
4003745
201
125686 31322
23

DEC Saarland
77 1017567
394
35059
34285
19
DED Sachsen
66
4149477
224
114270 27411
31

DEE Sachsen-Anhalt
65 2335006
113
62102
26357
22
DEF Schleswig-Holstein
81
2834259
179
90479 31949
22

DEG Thüringen
72 2235025
137
59235
26328
27

GR0 Greece

33
11260402
86
337965
30138
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bGRC%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">27

GR1 Voreia Ellada
27
3580472
64
89843
25152
25
GR2 Kentriki Ellada
20
2475170
47
66125 26795
19

GR3 Attiki

46 4088447
1080
147407
36295
32
GR4 Nisia Aigaiou, Kriti
29
1116313
64
34590 31085
20

HU0 Hungary

61
10014324
108
202002
20138
23

HU10 Közép-
Magyarország

69
2951436
430
99402 33978
31

HU21 Kosep-Dunantul
62 1098654
99
18451
16726
18
HU22 Nyugat-Dunantul
64
996390
88
18741 18775
16

HU23 Del-Dunantul
56 947986
67
13205
13856
17
HU31 Eszak-Magyarország
55
1209142
89
14979 12246
16

HU32 Eszak-Alfold
53 1492502
84
19585
13036
18
HU33 Del-Alfold
56
1318214
72
17638 13307
19

Iceland

92
317630
3
11723
36706
31

Ireland

65
4467854
66
177606
39911


IE01 Border - Midlands and
Western 60
1204423
38
33299
27766
30

IE02 Southern and Eastern

68
3263431
91
144307
44392
36

Israel


7623600
352
No Data
No Data
No Data

IL01 Jerusalem

53
934500
1431
No Data
No Data
No Data

IL02 Northern
56
1268200
284
No Data
No Data
No Data

IL03 Haifa
70
905700
1046
No Data
No Data
No Data

IL04 Central
76
1834600
1418
No Data
No Data
No Data

IL05 Tel Aviv
73
1281100
7448
No Data
No Data
No Data

IL06 Southern
69
1095600
77
No Data
No Data
No Data

IL06 Judea and Samaria
68
303900
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data

IT0 Italy

52

200
1950076
32477
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bITA%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">18

ITC1 Piemonte
51
4457335
179
153628 34659
16

ITC2 Valle d''Aosta/Vallée
d''Aoste 52
128230
40
5266
41444
13
ITC3 Liguria
49
1616788
303
55925 34627
20


4

ITC4 Lombardia
58
9068078
396
406704
41745
17
ITD1 Provincia Autonoma
Bolzano-Bozen
55
507657
69
23085 46275
11

ITD2 Provincia Autonoma
Trento
58 529457
86
20281
39017
17
ITD3 Veneto
55
4937854
280
182535 37362
14

ITD4 Friuli-Venezia Giulia
56
1235808
163
44458
36117
15
ITD5 Emilia-Romagna
56
4432418
205
172742 39821
17

ITE1 Toscana
58
3749813
165
131985
35596
17
ITE2 Umbria
53
1273449
154
26830 21027
16

ITE3 Marche
56
1020458
107
51359
43237
15

ITE4 Lazio

55
5728688
338
213078 37869
22

ITF1 Abruzzo
52
1342366
126
35916
26910
18
ITF2 Molise
43
319780
73
8390 26154
17

ITF3 Campania
43
5834056
435
121803
20954
16
ITF4 Puglia
37
3698396
193
87688 21494
15

ITF5 Basilicata
44
587517
61
13787
23343
15
ITF6 Calabria
43
2011395
136
42422 21119
17

ITG1 Sicilia
42
5051075
199
107427
21324
15
ITG2 Sardegna
56
1675411
70
41695 24952
13

JP0 Japan


128057352
343
4194818
32897
24
JPA Hokkaido/Tohoku
53
5506419
66
156717 28458
No
Data

JPB Tohoku
53
9335636
140
271668
28993
No Data

JPC Southern-Kanto

78
35618564
2717
1341994 38255
No
Data

JPD Northern-Kanto, Koshin
63
10001045
283
313162
31319
No Data

JPE Hokoriku
62
5443799
166
172603 31694
No
Data

JPF Toukai
67
15111223
677
530112
34940
No Data

JPG Kinki
73
20903173
797
655144 31476
No
Data

JPH Chugoku
57
7563428
241
238226
31474
No Data

JPI Shikoku
52
3977282
213
112886 28292
No
Data

JPJ Kyushu, Okinawa
53
14596783
334
402305
27619
No Data

KR0: Korea

84
48874539
491
1425223
29161
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bKOR%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">34

KR01: Capital region

90 24336199
2079
681747
28014
40
KR02: Gyeongnam region
78
7680036
623
248928 32412
37

KR03: Gyeonbuk region
73 5022566
252
140377
27949
34
KR04: Jeolla region
76
4893303
238
140066 28624
25

KR05: Chungcheong region
88 4952605
299
166243
33567
23

5

KR06: Gangwon region
74
1442929
87
35348 24497
29

KR07: Jeju
72 546901
296
12513
22879
34

Latvia

59
2229641
36
24448
10824


Lithuania

57
3244601
52
35138
10560


Luxembourg (Grand-
Duché)

68
511840
196
41263
83613
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bLUX%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">32

Mexico

21
112336538
57
1476530
13784
20

ME01 Aguacalienetes

24 1184996
211
16249
14340
24

ME02 Baja California
Norte

36
3155070
44
41520 13297
21

ME03 Baja California Sur

28 637026
9
9481
16978
23

ME04 Campeche

20
822441
14
75784 95769
20

ME05 Coahuila

7 2748391
18
43873
16774
22

ME06 Colima

134
650555
116
7793 13052
21

ME07 Chiapas

17 4796580
65
27356
6101
15

ME08 Chihuahua

4
3406465
14
45784 13561
17

ME09 Distrito Federal


35 8851080
5964
260658
29488
29

ME10 Durango

18
1632934
13
18847 12178
18

ME11 Guanajuato

68 5486372
179
56408
11207
14

ME12 Guerrerro

23
3388768
53
22021 7006
17

ME13 Hidalgo

13 2665018
128
22712
9403
15

ME14 Jalisco

4
7350682
94
93665 13401
21

ME15 Mexico

12 15175862
680
135214
9174
18

ME16 Michoacan

13
4351037
74
36481 9186
15

ME17 Morelos

26 1777227
363
16425
9845
18

ME18 Nayarit

20
1084979
39
9143 9443
20

ME19 Nuevo Leon

34 4653458
73
110754
25052
24

ME20 Oaxaca

7
3801962
41
22800 6419
15

ME21 Puebla

13 5779829
169
49377
8780
15

ME22 Queretaro

22
1827937
157
27258 15985
21

ME23 Quintana Roo

30 1325578
31
21275
16488
18

ME24 San Luis Potosi

15
2585518
42
27694 11169
21

ME25 Sinaloa

26 2767761
48
31522
11893
22

ME26 Sonora

30
2662480
15
37828 15136
21

ME27 Tabasco

12 2238603
91
50715
24796
19

ME28 Tamaulipas

25
3268554
41
46535 14661
23

ME29 Tlaxcala

9 1169936
293
7961
7062
18

ME30 Veracruz

14
7643194
106
69390 9544
18

ME31 Yucatan

20 1955577
49
21043
11017
15

ME32 Zacatecas

12
1490668
20
12965 9390
16

NL0 Netherlands

80
16574989
492
679034
41189
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bNLD%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">36

6

NL1 Noord-Nederland
75
1713954
206
67601 39560
26

NL2 Oost-Nederland
77
3517162
363
122140
34898
28

NL3 West-Nederland

82
7777014
901
341659 44257
34

NL4 Zuid-Nederland
79
3566859
505
140691
39551
29

NO0 Norway

80
4858199
16
262945
56171
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bNOR%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">39

NO01 Oslo og Akershus

83
1123359
225
81425
76977
46
NO02 Hedmark og Oppland
75
375925
8
15699
42232
25

NO03 Sør-Østlandet
79
928852
28
39972
44406
29
NO04 Agder og Rogaland
76
706823
30
36748
54602
30

NO05 Vestlandet
82
835517
18
43715
54083
32
NO06 Trøndelag
86
422102
11
19951
48910
34

NO07 Nord-Norge
74
465621
4
21462
46432
31

PL0 Poland

61
38167329
122
721478
18919
24

PL1 Centralny

60 7763999
145
201853
26034
No
Data

PL2 Poludniowy
61
7938995
289
147604
18607
No Data

PL3 Wschodni
57
6718785
90
89915
13369
No Data

PL4 Pólnocno-Zachodni
67
6111526
92
112843
18500
No Data

PL5 Poludniowo-Zachodni
64
3907724
133
75258
19247
No Data

PL6 Pólnocny
61
5726300
95
94010
16451
No Data

PT0 Portugal

57
10637713
116
265126
24948
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bPRT%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">16
PT11 Norte
53
3741092
176
74273
19829
13
PT15 Algarve
57
437643
88
11393 26250
12

PT16 Centro (PT)
51
2375902
84
49345
20724
11

PT17 Lisboa

67
2839908
949
98985 34966
22

PT18 Alentejo
48
749055
24
16990
22550
14
PT30 Região Autónoma da
Madeira (PT)
59
245811
106
5743 23405
8

PT20 Região Autónoma dos
Açores (PT)
54 247568
309
8087
32689
13

RO0 Romania


21413815
93
156019
7260


RO1 Macroregiunea unu
30
5240224
78
35755
6864
No Data

RO2 Macroregiunea doi
20
6505815
97
33346
5148
No Data

RO3 Macroregiunea trei

43 5521131
157
59016
10692
No
Data


7

RO4 Macroregiunea patru
31
4146645
69
27766
6600
No Data

SK0 Slovakia

55
5424925
111
122534
22640
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bSVK%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">17

SK01 Bratislavský kraj

57 628686
309
34329
55129
30
SK02 Západné Slovensko
60
1866652
125
39759 21302
13

SK03 Stredné Slovensko
51 1350492
83
24352
18030
14
SK04 Východné Slovensko
51
1589443
101
24091 15198
14

Slovenia

67
2046976
102
55432
27275


ES0 Spain

62
45989016
92
1476469
32217
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bESP%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">34

ES11 Galicia
52 2738602
93
79028
28854
33
ES12 Principado de Asturias
62
1058114
100
31559 29803
37

ES13 Cantabria
66 577997
111
17999
31226
38
ES21 Pais Vasco
65
2138588
298
89421 41863
47

ES22 Comunidad Foral de
Navarra
63 619011
60
24979
40647
39
ES23 La Rioja
58
314005
63
11137 35276
32

ES24 Aragón
63 1313017
28
46643
35504
34

ES30 Comunidad de
Madrid

71
6335807
805
266688 42365
40

ES41 Castilla y León
54 2499155
27
77306
30792
34
ES42 Castilla-la Mancha
58
2035516
26
53001 26204
24

ES43 Extremadura
52 1082792
27
24267
22460
25
ES51 Cataluña
69
7301132
230
272626 37396
32

ES52 Comunidad Valenciana
60 4994322
219
142594
28566
28
ES53 Illes Balears
66
1079094
220
36685 34283
21

ES61 Andalucia
56 8206057
96
201485
24721
27
ES62 Región de Murcia
59
1460664
131
39052 27056
26

ES63 Ciudad Autónoma de
Ceuta (ES)
65 74403
3893
2121
29226
25
ES64 Ciudad Autónoma de
Melilla (ES)
59
72515
5508
1899 27105
25

ES70 Canarias (ES)
61 2088225
284
56771
27339
25

SE0 Sweden

79
9340682
23
345848
37363
34

SE11 Stockholm

84 2019182
314
107258
54136
38
SE12 Östra Mellansverige
79
1558292
41
49032 31724
28

SE21 Småland med öarna
75
810066
24
25800
31935
24

8

SE22 Sydsverige
80
1383653
100
43823 32057
32

SE23 Vastsverige
79
1866283
64
64721
34952
30
SE31 Norra Mellansverige
78
825931
13
25793 31258
23

SE32 Mellersta Norrland
73
369708
5
12660
34191
27
SE33 Övre Norrland
76
507567
3
16704 32916
29

TUR Turkey

34
72561312
94
1038330
14519


UK0 United Kingdom

80
62261892
258
2095021
33904
http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=REG_INNO_TL2&Coords=%5bREG%5d.%5bGBR%5d,%5bVAR%5d.%5bEDU_ATT_ISCED_56_PERC%5d,%5bTIME%5d.%5b2005%5d&ShowOnWeb=true">36
UKC North East
75
2606600
305
67042
25942
26

UKD North West
80
6935700
493
197430
28622
30
UKE Yorkshire and The
Humber 76
5301300
346
147181
27991
29

UKF East Midlands
83
4481400
289
132197
29699
28
UKG West Midlands
75
5455200
421
152855 28144
28

UKH Eastern
82
5831800
308
181201
31423
28

UKI London

84 7825200
5025
457137
58958
44

UKJ South East
84
8523100
450
303977
36035
34
UKK South West
85
5273700
223
161253
30825
30

UKL Wales
77
3006400
145
74559
24859
30
UKM Scotland
78
5222100
67
173943
33489
37

UKN Northern Ireland
42
1799392
128
46243
25850
32

US0 United States

68
309050816
34
14551782
47085


US01 Alabama
56
4729656
36
172567
36486
20
US02 Alaska
73
708862
1
49120
69294
24

US04 Arizona
74
6676627
23
253609
37985
23
US05 Arkansas
52
2910236
22
102566
35243
17

US06 California
73
37266600
92
1901088
51013
27
US08 Colorado
72
5095309
19
257641
50564
32

US09 Connecticut
75
3526937
281
237261
67271
33
US10 Delaware
68
891464
176
62280
69863
25

US11 Dist. of Columbia


72
610589
3840
103288
169161
45
US12 Florida
70
18678049
134
747735
40033
24

US13 Georgia
69
9908357
66
403070
40680
25
US15 Hawaii
69
1300086
78
66760
51350
26

US16 Idaho
72
1559796
7
55435
35540
22
US17 Illinois
69
12944410
90
651518
50332
27

US18 Indiana
59
6445295
69
275676
42772
21
US 19 Iowa
68
3015766
21
142698
47317
22

US 20 Kansas
75
2841121
13
127170
44761
27
US 21 Kentucky
58
4339435
42
163269
37624
18

US 22 Louisiana
61
4529426
40
218853
48318
18
US 23 Maine
67
1312939
16
51643
39334
23


9

US 24 Maryland
74
5737274
227
295304
51471
32
US 25 Massachusetts
76 6631280
327
378729
57113
35

US 26 Michigan
66
9931235
68
384171
38683
23
US 27 Minnesota
71
5290447
26
270039
51043
29

US 28 Mississippi
52
2960467
24
97461
32921
17
US 29 Missouri
64
6011741
34
244016
40590
23

US 30 Montana
61
980152
3
36067
36797
24
US 31 Nebraska
69
1811072
9
89786
49576
25

US 32 Nevada
74
2654751
9
125650
47330
20
US 33 New Hampshire
78
1323531
57
60283
45547
31

US 34 New Jersey
73
8732811
455
487335
55805
32
US 35 New Mexico
58
2033875
7
79678
39175
22

US 36 New York
69
19577730
160
1159540
59228
29
US 37 North Carolina
65
9458888
75
424935
44924
24

US 38 North Dakota
71
650417
4
34685
53327
24
US 39 Ohio
64
11532111
109
477699
41423
22

US 40 Oklahoma
63
3724447
21
147543
39615
20
US 41 Oregon
75
3855536
16
174151
45169
26

US 42 Pennsylvania
67
12632780
109
569679
45095
24
US 44 Rhode Island
71
1056870
391
49234
46585
28

US 45 South Carolina
60
4596958
59
164445
35773
21
US 46 South Dakota
66
820077
4
39893
48645
23

US 47 Tennessee
60
6338112
59
254806
40202
21
US 48 Texas
67
25213445
37
1207494
47891
23

US 49 Utah
80
2830753
13
114538
40462
25
US 50 Vermont
69
622433
26
25620
41161
29

US 51 Virginia
70
7952119
78
423860
53302
31
US 53 Washington
77
6746199
39
340460
50467
28

US 54 West Virginia
59
1825513
29
64642
35410
16
US 55 Wisconsin
71
5668519
40
248265
43797
24

US 56 Wyoming
73
547637
2
38527
70351
21


10

Sources


% households with
Population
Population
GDP
GDP per
Education
broadband
Total
density
total
cap,
PPP
Australia 2010,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2005,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Austria 2011,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Belgium 2010,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Bulgaria 2011,
Eurostat
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,

Eurostat
Eurostat
Eurostat
Eurostat
Canada 2010,
CRTC
2010,
2010,
2010,
2010,
2006,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Chile 2011,
Subtel
2009,
2009,
2009,
2009,

OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Cyprus 2011,
Eurostat
2011,
2010,
2009,
2009,

Eurostat
Eurostat
Eurostat
Eurostat
Czech Republic
2011, OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Denmark 2011,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Estonia 2011,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,

OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Finland
2011, OECD; for
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
Aland, 2007, OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
France 2011,
Eurostat
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Eurostat
Germany 2010,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Greece 2009,
OECD
2009,
2009,
2008,
2008,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Hungary 2011,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Iceland 2011,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2006,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Ireland 2011,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Israel 2010,
OECD
2010,
2010,



OECD
OECD
Italy 2011,
OECD
2011,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Japan 2010,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2009,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Korea 2009,
KCC
2010,
2010,
2010,
2010,
2006,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Latvia 2011,
Eurostat
2011,
2010,
2009,
2009,

Eurostat
Eurostat
Eurostat
Eurostat
Lithuania 2011,
Eurostat
2011,
2010,
2009,
2009,

Eurostat
Eurostat
Eurostat
Eurostat
Luxembourg 2011,
OECD
2011,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Mexico 2010,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD

11

Netherlands 2010,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Norway 2011,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2007,
2007,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Poland 2011,
Eurostat
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Portugal 2011,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Romania 2011,
Eurostat
2011,
2010,
2009,
2009,

Eurostat
Eurostat
Eurostat
Eurostat
Slovakia 2011,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Slovenia 2010,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,

OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Spain 2011,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Sweden 2011,
OECD
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
United Kingdom
2011, OECD; for
2010,
2010,
2009,
2009,
2008,
Northern Ireland 2008
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
United States
2010, NTIA
2010,
2010,
2010,
2010,
2008,
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD


12


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


APPENDIX E: Market and Regulatory Background



In our previous IBDRs, we included in Appendix E market and regulatory background information as well
as information about topography and television and radio broadcast stations. Much of the information
reported in Appendix E of our earlier IBDRs has not changed. Therefore, we incorporate by reference
Appendix E from the Second IBDR as supplemented by the new information contained herein.

This Appendix contains updated information on regulatory and market developments for the 40 foreign
countries for which we obtained either pricing data in Appendix C or community-level demographic and
broadband adoption data in Appendix D. We also include in this Appendix topography and broadcast
information for Israel, the one country that was not included in Appendix E in the Second International
Broadband Data Report. The country-specific tables included in this Appendix E provide data on wired
broadband and wireless broadband, unlike the Second International Broadband Data report, which
included country-specific tables on fixed and mobile broadband. We made this change to reflect how the
OECD currently reports broadband data.

Table 1
OECD Rankings, Households with Broadband Access, 2010 or latest available year

Percentage of all households
OECD Broadband Portal Table 2a
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
)
d
)
*
)
k
s
d
y
)
l
8
*
)
e
*
)
a
*
)
*
)
i
a
*
)
7
d
d
*
)
y
l
y
e
y
(*
(
en
n
(
*
)
i
a
lic
9)
0
9)
t
es
c
(
ri
(
n
(
2
n
(
ar
c
e
(*
a
an
y
ar
nd
an
a
n
n
an
c
b
Ita
e
r
k
a
ed
m
9)
0
g (
00
t
a
a
o
st
n (
9)
e
8)
pain
l
a
u
e
00
re
el
la
i
nl
r
m
2
ur
lgium
2
v
EU
S
bli
ng
r
t
uga
p
2
i
co
I
c
w
w
09)
o
Tu
x
er
F
00
e
(
S
Fr
0
Est
Au
pa
00
00
I
r
el
Po
u
o
e
Gr
(
Ko
S
2
d (
a
Den
h
Ge
bo
B
m
2
J
2
Sl
2
pu
H
P
R
Nor
(
o
ed
ile
it
(
(
Me
d
h
Net
da
r
l
an
em
d
el (
Re
ak
e
x
g
lia
C
Un
n
h
na
u
i
n
r
a
l
ov
a
i
t
z
L
I
s
ala
t
r
a
s
ec
S
C
w
K
e
u
z
S
ed
Z
A
C
it
w
e
Un
N


Source: OECD, ICT database and Eurostat, Community Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals, November 2011.
Generally, data from the EU Community Survey on household use of ICT, which covers EU countries plus Iceland, Norway and Turkey, relate to
the first quarter of the reference year.
For Australia: data is based on a financial year, data provided relate to the second half of the reference year and the first half of the following
year; data was based on a multi-staged area sample of private and non-private dwellings, and covers the civilian population only; data includes
persons aged 15 years and over except members of the permanent defense forces, certain diplomatic personnel of overseas governments
customarily excluded from census and estimated population counts, overseas residents in Australia, and members of non-Australian defense
forces (and their dependants) stationed in Australia.
For Canada: Statistics for 2009 include the territories (Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory and Nunavut).
For the Czech Republic, data relate to the fourth quarter of the reference year.
For Japan: Households with Internet access via FTTH, ADSL, cable and fixed wireless broadband.
For Korea: Data also include mobile [broadband] phone access.
For New Zealand: The information is based on households in private occupied dwellings. Visitor-only dwellings, such as hotels, are excluded.
1

Table 2


OECD Rankings, Wireless Broadband Subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, June 2011

Source: OECD Broadband Portal Table 1d(2)




















1. Australia

Regulation:
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has modified the deal
between Telstra, the Australian government and NBN Co for Telstra to decommission its copper network
and shift its customers to the new high-speed network. Telstra will now be allowed to promote its
wireless service as a substitute for fiber because the ACCC felt that the original restrictions on Telstra’s
marketing of its wireless services could hinder competition for wireless voice and broadband services.1
Also, as a part of the agreement with the government and NBN Co., Telstra must separate its wholesale
and retail divisions. It has submitted a plan for this separation to the ACCC for approval, which the
ACCC accepted in February, 2012.2

Market and Competition:

Telstra is the only 4G provider in Australia. It launched its LTE service on
the 1800 MHz network in May 20113, but it did not offer 4G-capable handsets until January 2012.4 Users
could only access the service using USB dongles (i.e., stick modems). By March 2012, Telstra was
offering two 4G handsets following the launch of Samsung’s latest device loaded with the OS2.3 Android
software.5

1 The Australian, NBN loses Telstra wireless battle (Dec. 20, 2011), available at
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/nbn-loses-telstra-wireless-battle/story-e6frgaif-1226218587235.
2 ABC News, ACCC green lights Telstra separation plan (Feb. 28, 2012), available at
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-28/accc-approves-telstra-separation-plan/3856848.
3 The Register, Telstra turns on 4G (May 24, 2011), available at
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/24/telstra_tunes_lte/.
4 News.com.au, Telstra first 4G smartphone hits the shelves (Jan. 24, 2012), available at
http://www.news.com.au/.../smartphones/...first-4g-smartphone.../story-fn6.
5 The Register, Samsung joins Telstra’s 4G handset party (March 26, 2012), available at
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/26/telstra_galaxy_s_ii_4g/.
2



Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other6

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants7 24.0
0.1
3.9
19.9
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)8 5,405,000
% of households with fixed broadband access (2008)9 62.0

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants10 64.8
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011)11 14,609,000

2. Austria

Market and Competition:
In 2010, the incumbent operator, Telekom Austria, substantially accelerated
the expansion of its fiber-optic cable network, reaching 1.5 million homes or 36% of all households in the
country at the beginning of September 2010. The operator plans to create “fiber cities” across the
country, bringing FTTH to 150,000 homes and businesses; allowing broadband connection speeds of up
to 1 Gbps by 2013.12 Telekom Austria merged with mobilkom austria in 2011 and now operates under
the A1 brand.13 In November 2011, ZTE Corporation launched a commercial LTE network in Austria in
partnership with Hutchison 3G (H3G) Austria.14

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants15 24.7
0.1
7.6
16.9
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)16 2,068,623
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 17 63.7

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants18 33.5
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011)19 2,807,234

6 “Other” includes broadband over power lines.
7 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
8 Id.
9 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 9, 2011).
10 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). This figure includes satellite, which
could be fixed or mobile, and terrestrial fixed wireless, which is generally not a mobile service but is included by the
OECD in its mobile broadband statistics. This figure does not include mobile-broadband equipped handsets that do
not subscribe to a data package for a separate fee and did not make an Internet data connection via IP in the previous
three months.
11 Id.
12 IHS Global Insight, Austria: Telecoms Report (2010) (accessed Dec. 14, 2011), http://ihsglobalinsight.com
(subscription-based service).
13 http://www.telekomaustria.com/presse/news/02_23-pr-results-2010.php (accessed May 1, 2012).
14 Medianama, H3G, ZTE launch commercial LTE network in Austria (Nov. 16, 2011), available at http://press-
release.medianama.com/h3g-zte-launch-commercial-lte-network-in-austria-223.
15 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 7, 2011).
16 Id.
17 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (July 2010) (Dec. 7, 2011).
18 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 7, 2011).
3


3. Belgium

Market and Competition:

Four Belgian operators currently hold 3G licenses and competition in the
market is intense. The three existing mobile operators: Belgacom’s Proximus, Orange’s Mobistar and
KPN’s BASE; were joined by a fourth 3G licensee, in a joint-venture between cable operators Telenet
and Tecteo, in June 2011.20

At the end of November 2011, four companies acquired 4G licensees in the 2.6 GHz band: Belgacom SA,
BUCD BVBA, KPN group Belgium SA and Mobistar SA; through an auction conducted by the regulator,
Belgian Institute for Post services and Telecommunications (BIPT).21

In August 2011, BIPT announced plans to free up the existing mobile frequency bands in the 900 MHz,
1800 MHz (GSM) and 2.0 GHz (UMTS) spectrum and make them technology-neutral. BIPT has
indicated it will free up the existing frequency bands being used for 2G GSM and 3G UMTS services,
consistent with European Union directives, so they can be used for next-generation services like LTE.
Several companies have announced plans to test LTE mobile-broadband networks in Belgium, including
Telenet, Mobistar and KPN.22

The BIPT issued a consultation in March 2012, on the 800 MHz spectrum as part of ongoing plans to
make the band available for electronic communications services in the European Union by 2013. The
consultation relates to the use of the 800 MHz band for wireless broadband services. Responses and
comments were due to BIPT by May 11, 2012.23

In July 2011, the Belgian media regulator, the Conference of Regulators of Electronic Communications
(CRC) published a set of decisions that addressed triple play services (TV, Internet and fixed telephony).
The new rules went into effect in August 2011 and will impact the Belgian television broadcasting
landscape by opening up the cable television market in Belgium and improving the prices and quality of
the services provided to the consumer.24

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants25 31.6
0.0
14.6
16.9
0.1
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)26 3,433,746
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 27 70.0

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants28 10.9

(. . . continued from previous page)
19 Id.
20 IHS Global Insight, Belgium: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).
21 http://www.bipt.be/ShowDoc.aspx?objectid=3639&lang=en.
22 Id.
23http://www.bipt.be/en/426/ShowDoc/3761/Consultations/Consultation_organised_by_the_BIPT_Council_of_21_
M.aspx
24 http://www.bipt.be/ShowDoc.aspx?objectID=3539&lang=EN.
25 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 9, 2011).
26 Id.
27 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 9, 2011).
4

Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 29 1,182,344

4. Bulgaria

Market and Competition:

Following requests from industry, Bulgaria’s telecommunications regulator,
the Communications Regulation Commission (CRC), reopened an auction for a fourth GSM operator in
2011, however, the auction failed to attract any bidders. Observers say that the auction failed because of
the high penetration in the Bulgarian mobile market and the auction’s high starting bid.30

In December 2011, the CRC announced the authorization of three operators to launch mobile services in
the 1800 MHz range. The operators may choose their network technology, whether GSM, UMTS, LTE
or WiMAX.31

In December 2011, the CRC also announced an auction with negotiated bidding for granting a license for
a broadband wireless (BWA) concession, using 1 frequency block of 42 MHz in the 3.5 GHz range for a
period of ten years. 32 The auction was held in February and the results have not yet been announced.

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL

Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants33 14.70
Data
Data
Data
Data
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fixed broadband subs (2010)34 1,101,634
% of households with fixed broadband access
26
(2009) 35

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100
20
inhabitants36

Mobile wireless broadband subs (Q1 2012)37 1,505,406

5. Canada

Regulation:

In November 2011, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
(CRTC) issued a new ruling on billing practices for wholesale residential Internet access. To foster
competition at the wholesale level, the CRTC decided that there are two acceptable methods for large
(. . . continued from previous page)
28 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 9, 2011).
29 Id.
30 http://sofiaecho.com/2011/11/27/1213578_bulgaria-delays-tender-for-fourth-mobile-carrier.
31 http://www.crc.bg/news.php?news_id=180&lang=en.
32 http://www.crc.bg/news.php?news_id=174&lang=en
33 See ITU, ICT Statistics Database (2010), available at http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/icteye/Indicators/Indicators.aspx
(ITU Statistics Database) (accessed Nov. 17, 2011).
34 Id.
35 See eGovernment Factbook (2009), available at http://www.epractice.eu/en/document/288394.
36 Wireless Intelligence, https://www.wirelessintelligence.com/Index.aspx (accessed May 15, 2012) (available by
subscription) (High Speed Packet Access (HSPA) connections only). HSPA, which uses the FDD transmission
scheme, includes HSDPA (High Speed Downlink Packet Access), HSUPA (High Speed Uplink Packet Access) and
HSPA Evolved.
37 Id.
5

telephone and cable companies to charge independent service providers for use of their networks: the flat-
rate billing model and the capacity-based billing model. Under the flat-rate model, independent service
providers are charged a flat monthly fee per retail customer for access to a telephone or cable company’s
network. Under the capacity-based model, independent service providers pre-purchase the amount of
network capacity they anticipate they will need, and if demand exceeds the amount purchased, the
provider must manage its network capacity until it can buy more.38 Under this model, the independent
service providers are paying for the total capacity they need, not the volume of data downloaded. The
CRTC decided to implement the capacity-based billing model for independent ISPs starting in February
2012. This decision only affects the wholesale services that the large telephone and cable companies
provide to independent ISPs. Furthermore, the CRTC does not regulate the rates or packages that ISPs
offer to consumers.39

Market and Competition:
In its Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-291, the CRTC stated that it would be
in the public interest to establish universal target speeds for broadband Internet access so that all
Canadians, particularly those in rural and remote areas, could benefit from a greater level of broadband
connectivity. The CRTC established target speeds of 5 Mbps downstream and
1 Mbps upstream, which are to be available to all Canadians through a variety of technologies by the end
of 2015.40

A number of technologies and platforms are available and used to provide broadband service in Canada.
In 2010, mobile (HSPA+) technology was available to 96% of households, surpassing DSL (85%), fixed
wireless and satellite (83%) and cable modem (82%).41

Rogers launched its 4G LTE broadband network in July 2011, and Bell deployed its own LTE network in
September 2011.

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants42 31.2
0.2
17.6
13.5
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (December 2011)43 10,653,342
% of households with fixed broadband access (2009) 44 72.2

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants45 31.8
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 46 10,835,371

6. Chile


38 http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/t1044.htm.
39 http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2012/r120127.htm.
40 Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Broadband Report (November 2011), at
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/broadband/bbreport1111.htm.
41 Id. at 7.
42 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
43 Id.
44 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). In even numbered years, Canada
includes only its 10 provinces in its statistics and excludes its three territories.
45 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
46 Id.
6

Regulation:

New amendments to the General Telecommunications Law passed in 2011 mandate that
information regarding the service plans of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must be transparent and
prohibit ISPs from blocking arbitrary applications, services and Internet content.47

The Chilean government’s support is a fundamental component of the country’s broadband deployment.
There is no universal service requirement in Chile, and the Telecommunications Development Fund is
financed from the national budget rather than through levies on telecommunications operators. In 2009,
the government funded a two year project to provide broadband access to between 70-90% of the rural
population, called Rural Internet Network: All Chile Connected. The public-private partnership with
telecommunications operator Entel and Ericsson completed the first stage of the project in September
2010 by connecting 1.7 million rural inhabitants. The second stage of the project was launched in August
2011, benefitting 991,000 people in 587 communities, and the third and final stage is expected to be
completed by the beginning of 2012.48

In November 2011, Chile’s President Sebastian Piñera signed a bill to create a Superintendency of
Telecommunications, a new telecommunications regulator that will deal with more technical issues than
the Subsecretaría de Telecomunicaciones (SUBTEL), the current telecommunications regulator. The
Superintendency will have three major functions: to reduce the time needed to award mobile licenses;
improve regulation; and supervise and measure network performance, and produce quarterly service
quality indices showing the different networks’ performance to help consumers make informed decisions
when contracting for services. It has been tasked with: monitoring compliance with regulations and
administering punitive measures when necessary; participating in the award and revocation of licenses;
ensuring proper use of spectrum; and collecting information on the sector and regulating tariffs. The
Superintendency will not replace the current telecommunications regulator SUBTEL, but will work
alongside it. The bill has been sent to Congress for approval and is expected to be processed by the end
of 2012.49

Market and Competition:

The largest broadband provider by subscribers is Telefónica Chile
(Movistar). Another major broadband provider is Claro Chile, which was created by the merger of
Telmex Chile and Claro Chile in August 2010 to form a new company offering triple-play services under
the Claro brand name. As of December 2011, Telefónica Chile has the most market share, at 43.5%,
followed by VTR (37.9%), Claro Chile (10.1%), Grupo GTD 7.3%) and Entel (1.0%).50

On December 1, 2011, Chile launched an auction of 4G spectrum in the 2.6 GHz band for LTE services.
The government is auctioning three blocks of 20 MHz each in the 2.6 GHz band, and a maximum of one
block will be awarded for each applicant. Auction rules were made available on December 16, 2011. 51
Award of the licenses in anticipated in the second half of 2012.


47 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Chile (2011) (accessed Dec. 5, 2011), http://www.telegeography.com
(subscription-based service).
48 Telegeography, Govt, Entel and Ericsson to connect rural areas to broadband (Dec. 7, 2010); Telegeography,
Rural roll-out reaches second stage (Aug. 19, 2011).
49 Telecompaper, Chile to set up second telecoms watchdog by end-2012, (Dec. 28, 2011); Government of Chile,
Proyecto de ley que crea Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, (Nov. 4, 2011) at
http://www.gob.cl/especiales/proyecto-de-ley-que-crea-superintendencia-de-telecomunicaciones/.
50 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Chile (2011) (April 23, 2012).
51 Subtel, Subtel Lanza Concurso para Servicios 4G Impulsando Mayor Cobertura y Competencia en Banda Ancha
Móvel
(Dec. 1, 2011), available at
http://www.subtel.gob.cl/prontus_subtel/site/artic/20111201/pags/20111201082958.html.
7

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants52 11.0
0.0
5.3
5.7
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)53 1,883,956
% of households with fixed broadband access (2009) 54 23.9

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants55 9.7
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 56 1,656,473

7. Cyprus

Regulation:
The Department of Electronic Communications of the Ministry of Communications and
Works (MCW) oversees spectrum management.57 The Office of the Commissioner of Electronic
Communications & Postal Regulation, established in 2002, is responsible for the introduction of effective
competition in the provision of networks and services, and the protection of consumers, especially in
issues relevant to the price and the quality of the provided services.58

Cyprus requires both unbundled loops and wholesale broadband access.59

Market and Competition:

Cytamobile-Vodafone’s entire network has been upgraded to 3.5G. MTN is
currently in the process of a 3.5G upgrade with priority given to the urban areas of Nicosia.60 Using a 3G
mobile phone, a 3G modem, or a specialized 3G data card, Cypriot users can access the internet with
broadband speeds of up to 384 kbps or up to 1.8 Mbps in the case of 3.5G (HSDPA).

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL

Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants61 17.62
Data
Data
Data
Data
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fixed broadband subs (2010)62 194,455
% of households with fixed broadband access
Data N/A

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100
37
inhabitants63


52 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
53 Id.
54 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
55 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
56 Id.
57 See MCW, http://www.mcw.gov.cy/mcw/mcw.nsf/index_en/index_en?OpenDocument.
58 See OCECPR, http://www.ocecpr.org.cy/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=767&tt=ocecpr&lang=gr; see also Cyprus
Government, Office of the Commissioner of Electronic Communications and Postal Regulation,
http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/portal/portal.nsf/All/6D2934F2A71AAF04C225702A0029F464.
59 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/doc/implementation_enforcement/annualreports/15threport
/cy.pdf.
60 http://www.cyprusbroadband.net/3g-mobile-broadband.html.
61 ITU Statistics Database (accessed Nov. 17, 2011).
62 Id.
8

Mobile wireless broadband subs (Q1 2012)64 413,367

8. Czech Republic

Market and Competition:

O2 Czech Republic maintains its focus on developing attractive voice and
data packages, along with the policy of migration from pre-paid to contract, on its fully-fledged 3G
network. In February 2011, O2 and T-Mobile announced an agreement to share W-CDMA networks in
areas served by neither. Consistent with Telefónica's group strategy, its Czech unit has begun trials of
LTE as its 4G technology of choice.65 In September 2011, the Czech Republic announced the tender for
4G spectrum in the 800 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2.6 GHz bands. Public consultation on auction rules was
released in March 2012 and comments were due in May.66 The frequencies on offer can be purchased by
the existing mobile operators in order to add 4G services to their service portfolios. The 1800MHz band is
reserved for a possible new entrant. Dates have not yet been established for the auction.67

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants68 15.1
1.9
4.7
8.5
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)69 1,589,600
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 70 53.6

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants71 54.9
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 72 5,777,828

9. Denmark

Regulation:
The Danish government announced in October 2011 that the National IT and Telecom
Agency (NITA) will close, and the agency’s business will be transferred to the Ministry of Business
Affairs and Growth, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Interior and
Economy.73

(. . . continued from previous page)
63 Wireless Intelligence, https://www.wirelessintelligence.com/Index.aspx (accessed May 15, 2012) (HSPA
connections only).
64 Id.
65 IHS Global Insight, Czech Republic: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).
66 Czech Telecommunication Office, Press Release, March 20, 2012 available at
http://www.ctu.eu/main.php?pageid=342 (accessed May 23, 2012).
67 http://www.ctu.cz/cs/download/aktualni_informace/invitation_to_tender_20_03_2012_
invitation_to_tender_20_03_2012.pdf (accessed May 18, 2012).
68 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
69 Id.
70 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a June 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). Data relates to the fourth quarter of
2010.
71 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
72 Id.
73 http://en.itst.dk/news/the-national-it-and-telecom-agency-is-closing.
9

Market and Competition

: The number of broadband connections continues to rise, and the country has
had rapid growth in the number of broadband connections with speeds of up to 100 Mbps.74 By the end
of June 2011, speeds of up to 100 Mbps were available to 38% of households and businesses.75
According to NITA, the improvement is due to the expansion of the existing fiber network in the country,
as well as the upgrade of the cable network.76

Next generation mobile broadband is also expanding, with all four major mobile operators now holding
LTE licenses.77 In October 2011, TeliaSonera’s Danish unit, Telia, announced plans to expand the
coverage of its LTE network to an additional 69 cities, taking its total network coverage to 73 cities in the
country, covering over half of Denmark’s population.78 Incumbent TDC partnered with Ericsson to roll
out its LTE network.79 Hutchison Whampoa's Hi3G entered into an agreement with ZTE for the delivery
of LTE infrastructure equipment that will enable it to build the first LTE TDD (Time Division
Duplex)/FDD (Frequency Division Duplex) dual-mode network in the world.80

At the end of June 2011, approximately 0.5% of all households in the country remained unable to get a
connection of at least 2 Mbps, down from 1.0% a year earlier.81 In an effort to help meet the objective of
providing broadband access offering download speeds of at least 100 Mbps to all by 2020, and meet the
ever increasing need for bandwidth, NITA launched a public consultation on the future shape of the
800MHz digital dividend auction.82 In August 2011 the government announced that the frequencies in
the bands 791-821 MHz and 832-862 MHz would be auctioned nationwide for telecom use on a service-
and technology-neutral basis.83 This auction is due to be held in May 2012.84

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants85 37.7
5.0
10.1
21.9
0.7
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)86 2,090,825
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 87 80.1

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants88 73.6

74 IHS Global Insight, Denmark: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011); Telegeography GlobalComms
Database: Denmark (2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
75 Id.
76 IHS Global Insight, Denmark: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
77 http://point-topic.com/content/operatorSource/profiles2/denmark-broadband-overview.htm.
78 IHS Global Insight, Denmark: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Oct. 11, 2011).
79 IHS Global Insight, Denmark, Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Nov. 8, 2010); Telegeography GlobalComms
Database: Denmark (2011) (accessed Oct 12, 2011).
80 IHS Global Insight, Denmark: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Mar. 29, 2011); Telegeography GlobalComms
Database: Denmark (2011) (accessed Mar. 29, 2011).
81 IHS Global Insight, Denmark:, Telecoms Report (2011) (access March 22, 2012).
82 Id.
83 Id.; Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Denmark (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012).
84 Id.
85 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
86 Id.
87 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
10


Mobile wireless broadband subs (December 2010) 89 4,081,086

10. Estonia

Market and Competition:

On July 23, 2010 the European Commission (EC) approved Estonia’s plan to
provide state aid to the Estonian Wideband Infrastructure Network (EstWin) project to roll out a
nationwide broadband network by 2015.90 This plan to develop super-fast broadband infrastructure is
intended to narrow the gap in digital service provision that exists between urban and rural areas. It will
do so by connecting households and business to a new fiber network capable of offering 100 Mbps
speeds.91
The EstWin project will be implemented in several stages. 92 The first stage is the deployment of fiber-
optic networks in rural areas where it is not currently commercially viable to do so. 93 Next, the project
will cover the upgrade of existing networks to improve their quality and capacity. 94 Telecom operators
will build network connection points in cooperation with local governments, and an open access model
will be used, with all operators being able to rent the infrastructure on equal terms. 95 By the end of the
project, 98% of end users will be within 1.5 kilometers of the nearest network access point.
On August 24, 2011, the government announced completion of the first stage of the EstWin project.96

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants97 24.1
5.5
6.1
11.9
0.6
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)98 322,523
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 99 64.5

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants100 33.3
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 101 446,510

(. . . continued from previous page)
88 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
89 Id.
90 Estonia Broadband Overview, http://point-topic.com/content/operatorSource/profiles2/estonia-broadband-
overview.htm
91 Id.
92 Id.
93 Id.
94 Id.
95 Id.
96 First stage of EstWin broadband network completed,
http://www.elasa.ee/index.php?page=93&action=article&article_id=30.
97 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
98 Id.
99 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
100 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
101 Id.
11

11. Finland

Market and Competition:
Finland leads the Nordic countries in mobile broadband penetration as more
users migrate to LTE networks and fixed-mobile replacement.102 Thirty percent of Finns use mobile
broadband subscriptions.103 Most of the users that acquired mobile broadband in 2011 were users who
already had a fixed broadband connection.104 The Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority
(FICORA) anticipates the greatest increase in mobile broadband will continue to occur in households
where it will be used side-by-by with another connection. 105

The fastest and most affordable broadband connections – and consequently the users – were concentrated
in the big cities where there is more variety in the supply of fast, fixed-line internet connections, and
competition.106 Specifically, in the Greater Helsinki area, other large cities, and areas outside of large
cities, the percentages of homes with fixed-line internet connections were 40%, 30%, and 20%
respectively. Big city dwellers paid 20% less for their internet connections than those living elsewhere in
Finland. 107
In order to increase the availability of broadband connections of 100 Mbps in sparsely-populated areas by
the end of 2015, the state, municipalities, and the EU have agreed together to cover 66% of the cost of
building ultra-high speed broadband infrastructure in those areas.108 The first company to receive such
aid is Suupohjan Seutuverkko Oy.109 The regulator provided the aid in February 2012 for the optic-fiber
network covering the municipality of Karvia in Western Finland.110
There is a lot of competition in the Finnish broadband market. Elisa, TeliaSonera, DNA, and Finnet are
the dominant players.111 At the end of June 2011, Elisa and TeliaSonera were the joint broadband market
leaders. Each had a 30% share. DNA and Finnet Group held 19% and 16% shares of the broadband
market respectively.112

DNA has recently taken steps to increase its market share. DNA indicated that it will achieve the higher
downlink speeds via the deployment of two technologies: dual carrier HSPA+ (DC-HSPA+) and Long
Term Evolution (LTE).113 As of April 2012, DNA has the largest 4G DC-HSPA network in Finland
covering over 100 cities and almost 50% of the Finnish population. Its LTE network is available in the
capital city Helsinki, as well as in Turku, Tampere and Hameenlinna.114

102 IHS Global Insight, Finland: Telecoms Report (2011)(accessed March 21, 2012).
103 Id.
104 http://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/index/asiointi-info/ajankohtaista/lehdistotiedotteet/2012/T_4.html.
105 Id.
106 Id.
107 Id.
108 http://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/index/asiointi-info/ajankohtaista/uutiset/2012/P_9.html.
109 Id.
110 Id.
111 IHS Global Insight, Finland: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 21, 2012).
112 Id.
113 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Finland (2011) (accessed March 21, 2012).
114 http://telecomlead.com/inner-page-details.php?id=8337&block=Broadband (accessed May 21, 2012).
12


Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants115 28.9
0.7
4.8
20.8
2.6
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)116 1,550,400
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 117 75.8

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants118 79.1
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011)119 4,243,800

12. France

Market and Competition:

The rollout of fiber in France is picking up speed in part because operators
are entering into new agreements and increasing investments. For example, in November 2011 France
Telecom-Orange announced an agreement with mobile provider SFR to deploy optical fiber technology
covering millions of households in less densely-populated areas of France.120 The fiber-optic deployment
agreement covers approximately 9.8 million homes in areas where both operators have redundant
deployment projects. 121 This fiber investment is part of France Telecom-Orange’s plan to spend, with the
help of private-operator investment, EUR2 billion (US$2.7 billion) by 2015 on fiber expansion to reach
60% of French households by 2020.122

In addition, in September 2011, the French telecommunications regulator, ARCEP (L’Autorité de
régulation des communications électroniques et des postes) sold the first blocks of 4G mobile frequencies
in the 2500 – 2690 MHz band for a total of EUR936 million (US$1.28 billion).123 ARCEP awarded
concessions to all four of the country’s main mobile network operators and raised far more money than it
had expected.124 However, another goal of the auction is to achieve LTE coverage across 99% of the
country by 2025. Accordingly, in December 2011, ARCEP kicked off phase two of the licensing process
by selling the more valuable – or so-called “golden” 800 MHz frequencies – for EUR 2.64 billion
(US$3.45 billion) to Vivendi's SFR, France Telecom, and Bouygues.125

115 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
116 Id.
117 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 16 2011).
118 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) ) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
119 Id.
120 France Telecom-Orange, SFR strike agreement to roll out fibre to less densely populated areas (Nov. 15, 2011),
http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2011/11/15/france-telecom-orange-sfr-strike-
agreement-to-roll-out-fibre-to-less-densely-populated-areas/index.html
121 Id.
122 Id.
123 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: France (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012); IHS Global Insight, France:
Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012)
124 Id.
125 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: France (2011)(accessed March 23, 2012); IHS Global Insight, France:
Telecom Report (2011)(accessed March 23, 2012); IHS Global Insight, France: Telecom Report (accessed April 20,
2012)
http://myinsight.ihsglobalinsight.com/servlet/cats?pageContent=art&serviceID=9663&filterID=1015&documentID
=2438445&typeID=0&documentTypeId=8&src=pc ;http://www.telecomengine.com/article/french-government-
raises-345-billion-4g-auction
13


ARCEP and a number of other entities commissioned a report from Analysys Mason on future
applications and services of ultra fast broadband (UFB).126 The 2012 report is based upon research
conducted from February to July 2011. It provides forward-looking analysis by exploring the current
state of the French market, comparing representative foreign markets, and analyzing the advantages of
UFB compared to regular broadband. Among other things, the report found that, because of the current
availability of affordable good quality access, users in France may not see any clear incentive to switch to
a faster service. According to this report, it appears that those countries wanting to enable the emergence
of UFB have adopted policies such as incentives, government investment, or regulatory frameworks in
support of UFB and competition.127

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants128 33.8
0.2
2.0
31.6
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)129 21,895,000
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 130 66.8

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants131 38.2
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 132 24,776,000

13. Germany

Regulation:

German implementation of the European Union’s latest Electronic Communications
Framework Directive, entitled the national Telecommunications Act (Telekommunikationsgesetz - TKG),
calls for increased competition in the sector and provides for asymmetric deregulation of the market,
while allowing investigations of anti-competitive behavior to be initiated at the discretion of the German
regulator (Bundesnetzagentur – BNetzA).133

In early 2012, the Upper House of the German Parliament adopted various amendments to the German
Telecommunications Act (“TKG Amendments”) and shortly thereafter, in March 2012, after deliberation
on a set of compromise amendments, the German Lower House also voted favorably on the bill. The final
legislation includes: 1) broad consent requirements of the German states for revisions to the national
Frequency Allocation Plan; 2) new rules and consultation requirements between the Federal government
and the German states in frequency matters concerning broadcasting; and 3) an agreement in principle on
the distribution of proceeds between the Federal Government and the States in case of new “digital
dividend” auctions.134

126 http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=8571&L=1&tx_gsactualite_pi1[uid]=1496&cHash=df7940c8cb
127 Id.
128 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
129 Id.
130 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
131 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
132 Id.
133 http://trade.gov/cs/Germany
134 Bundesrat Bill 72/12 (adopted on 02/10/12):
http://www.bundesrat.de/nn_8396/SharedDocs/Drucksachen/2012/0001-0100/72-
12,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/72-12.pdf and Bundesrat Resolution:
http://www.bundesrat.de/nn_8396/SharedDocs/Drucksachen/2012/0001-0100/72-
12_28B_29,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/72-12(B).pdf (accessed May 8, 2012).
14


The new legislation was published in Germany’s Federal Gazette and, with the exception of a provision
relating to call waiting, took effect in May 2012.135

Market and Competition:
The German Information and Communications Technology (ICT) market is
currently the largest in Europe, representing 20% of the overall European Union market, and fourth
largest in the world.136 The broadband market share distribution between Deutsche Telekom AG (DT)
and its competitors remained steady over the past year, with competitors able to maintain their combined
market share of over 54%.137

Deutsche Telekom plans to complete expansion of its fiber optic network to over 20 German cities by the
end of 2012, with anticipated total expenditure of between EUR40 to 50 billion (between US $53 to 66
billion). The new network architecture will make it possible to download data at speeds of up to one
gigabit per second (1 Gbps) and upload it at speeds of up to 0.5 Gbps.138

With mobile internet usage doubling in 2011, 3G mobile penetration is expected to reach more than 60%
of all German mobile subscribers by the end of 2012.139

Mobile data services are the fastest growing segment within the German telecommunications services
market, with expected two-digit growth rates in 2012. Overall, data services are expected to reach a
volume of nearly EUR6 billion (US $7.9 billion) by the end of 2012.140

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants141 32.6
0.2
3.8
28.5
0.1
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)142 26,615,000
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 143 75.2

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants144 29.2
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 145 23,874,300

14. Greece

Market and Competition:

Greece is among the countries hardest hit by the Eurozone monetary crisis.146
The regulator, EETT (National Telecommunications and Post Commission), has had to take a number of

135 http://www.bgbl.de/Xaver/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl (accessed May 9, 2012).
136 http://www.ukti.gov.uk/home.html?guid=none.
137http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cln_1932/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2011/111215_ActivityReportPos
tTK.html?nn=214432.
138 http://www.cr-report.telekom.com/site11/en/co/uebersicht/index.php.
139 http://www.bitkom.org/70928_70921.aspx.
140 http://www.bitkom.org/70928_70921.aspx.
141 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
142 Id.
143 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
144 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
145 Id.
15

measures in return for European Union bailout loans. Among them is the sale of spectrum as part of the
privatization program begun in the early part of 2011, when Greece sold off an additional 10% stake in
state-owned operator OTE to Deutsche Telekom. The Greek regulator also recently raised EUR380.5
million (US$523 million) from the sale of both new and existing spectrum in the 900 MHz and 1800
MHz bands.147 The buyers included all three existing operators, OTE's Cosmote, Vodafone Greece, and
Wind Hellas.148 The regulator issued the licenses for 15 years.149 It is expected that all three operators
will promote the development of high speed mobile broadband technologies such as LTE.150

Greece’s operators are also struggling to stay afloat as subscriber numbers remain far below what they
had been in previous years.151 A planned merger between Greece’s second and third largest cellular
companies, Wind Hellas and Vodafone, was abandoned by Vodafone.152

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants153 20.8
0.0
0.0
20.7
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)154 2,349,878
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 155 41.2

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants156 30.0
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 157 3,391,905

15. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China

Regulation:
In June 2011, the Legislative Council passed the Communications Authority (CA) Bill,
which established a unified regulator for the entire communications industry.158 To form the CA, the
Office of the Telecommunications Authority (OFTA) and the Broadcasting Division of the Television and
Entertainment Licensing Authority (TELA) were merged. The executive arm is now a government
department named the Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA), similar to OFTA but with
additional jurisdiction over broadcasting. The CA began functioning on April 2, 2012 and will enforce the
(. . . continued from previous page)
146 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Greece (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012).
147 IHS Global Insight, Greece: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012); IHS Global Insight, Greece:
Telecoms Report (2011)(accessed March 23, 2012).
148 Id.
149 Id.
150 Id.
151 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Greece (2011)(accessed March 23, 2012).
152http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/9063386/Vodafone-
quits-Hellas-merger-over-Greek-default-fears.html (accessed April 26, 2012)
153 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
154 Id.
155 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
156 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
157 Id.
158 Legislative Council, Brief on Communications Authority Bill, available at http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr09-
10/english/bills/brief/b33_brf.pdf. See also CEDB, Press Release, “Communications Authority Bill to be
introduced” (June 18, 2010), available at http://www.cedb.gov.hk/ctb/eng/press/2010/pr18062010.htm.
16

Telecommunications Ordinance, the Broadcasting Ordinance, and the Unsolicited Electronic Messages
Ordinance.159

In addition, the Legislative Council is considering a Competition Bill that is still in the process of being
amended amidst heavy industry lobbying. The Competition Bill would repeal or amend, as applicable,
any relevant competition provisions in the Telecommunications and Broadcast Ordinances. The
Competition Bill would also establish a Competition Commission, which would have concurrent
jurisdiction over competition-related telecommunications and broadcast matters with the CA.160

Market and Competition:

Mobile broadband is extremely popular and demand is growing: mobile data
usage for the month of December 2010 was 296 MB per 2.5/3G mobile user, a nearly threefold increase
over the prior year, and almost 14 times the amount used in 2008.161 CSL Limited launched Hong Kong’s
first 4G LTE mobile broadband network in November 2010.162 PCCW and Hutchison launched their 4G
joint venture in early 2011.163

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL

Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants164
30.16
Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A
Fixed broadband subs (2010)165 2,126,962
% of households with fixed broadband access 87
(2012) 166

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100
70
inhabitants167

Mobile wireless broadband subs (Q1 2012)168 5,027,667

16. Hungary

Market and Competition:
The market consists of three mobile network operators: Deutsche Telekom's
T-Mobile, Telenor Hungary, and Vodafone, which are increasingly battling over mobile data revenues.

159 OFCA, “Chairman’s Welcome Message” (April 1, 2012), available at http://www.coms-
auth.hk/en/about_us/message/index.html.
160 See Secretary of CEDB, Remarks on the Competition bill (Oct. 18, 2011), available at
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201110/18/P201110180243.htm (detailing six proposed amendments to the
Competition Bill); see also Mayer Brown JSM, Hong Kong Antitrust & Competition Update (Dec. 21, 2010),
available at http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=10169 (noting that Mayer Brown is
“assist[ing] a broad range of organizations who are making submissions to the Bills Committee”).
161 2010 Government Yearbook, id. at 358.
162 CSL, Press Release, “CSL Launches World’s First Commercial Grade LTE/DC-HSPA+
Network” (November 25, 2010), available at
http://www.hkcsl.com/en/pdf/2010/CSL_Network_Launch_eng.pdf.
163 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Hong Kong (2011)(accessed March 23, 2012).
164 ITU Statistics Database, accessed Nov. 17, 2011.
165 Id.
166 http://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/telecommunications.pdf (accessed May 1, 2012).
167 Wireless Intelligence, https://www.wirelessintelligence.com/Index.aspx (accessed Apr. 14, 2011) (HSPA
connections only).
168 Id.
17

To that end, each operator has been focusing on mobile broadband, with significant investments in high
speed packet access (HSPA+). Specifically, Telenor and T-Mobile launched their HSPA+ networks in
2011, while third operator Vodafone launched its network in early 2010.169 In addition, T-Mobile plans to
launch LTE in 2012.170

The three network operators may soon face additional competition. In August 2011, Hungary’s national
telecoms regulator, the National Media and Infocommunications Authority (NMHH), launched an auction
for companies wishing to secure the right to use 900 MHz mobile frequencies for 15 years.171 The
NMHH invited bids through a two-round auction process to award three blocks of spectrum in the 900
MHz band for the provision of GSM, UMTS, WiMAX, or LTE services. 172 NMHH received bids from
six companies. In addition to the three incumbent mobile network operators, the regulator received an
application to bid for 900MHz frequency blocks from a consortium of three state-owned companies
(postal operator Magyar Posta, power utility MVM and development bank MFB) that are collectively
referred to as MVM.173 NMHH also received applications from Romania-based cable company
RCS&RDS, and Vietnamese telecommunications company Viettel Group.174 NMHH rejected the latter
two applications, and in January 2012, awarded the 900 MHz spectrum to the MVM consortium and the
three incumbents, Vodafone, Telenor and T-Mobile.175 The incumbents have since filed multiple legal
challenges to the regulator’s decision to award frequencies to the new market entrant, which were pending
as of April 2012.176

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants177 20.3
2.6
9.3
8.4
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)178 2,031,947
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 179 52.2

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants180 10.5
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 181 1,046,405

17. Iceland

Market and Competition

: Although broadband adoption in Iceland remains among the highest in the
world, in January 2009, Iceland suffered a severe economic collapse and the telecommunications sector

169 IHS Global Insight, Hungary: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012).
170 Id.
171 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Hungary(2011) (accessed March 23, 2012).
172 Id.
173 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Hungary (2012) (accessed May 18, 2012)
174 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Hungary (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012).
175 TeleGeography GlobalComms Database: Hungary (2012) (accessed May 18, 2012).
176 Id.
177 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
178 Id.
179 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
180 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2(June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
181 Id.
18

was not immune from the fallout. The two leading players, Vodafone Iceland and incumbent Síminn,
continue to experience reductions in revenue as customers continue to reign in their discretionary
spending.182 Nonetheless, the industry has shown remarkable resiliency. The Post and Telecom
Administration reports that in 2010, fiber-optic connections increased significantly, and there are now
more than 10,000 homes connected through fiber-optic facilities. In addition, Iceland added two GSM
systems that cover the whole country, and a 3G system that reaches 90% of the country's households and
coastal waters.183

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants184 33.6
4.4
0.0
29.3
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (December 2010)185 106,896
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 186 87.0

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants187 54.21
Mobile wireless broadband subs (December 2010) 188 172,127

18. Ireland

Market and Competition:

The Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) has been
working on ushering in a new era of advanced wireless services including fast, high capacity mobile
broadband.189 On March 16, 2012, ComReg announced that it had decided to offer via auction, the rights
to use spectrum across 800 MHz, 900 MHz, and 1800 MHz radio bands for the period from 2013 to
2030.190 In all, 28 blocks of bandwidth will be made available which will more than double the currently
licensed assignments in these bands. 191

The completion of Ireland's National Broadband Scheme (NBS) in October 2010 brought broadband
services to every district in the country. However, there are still some areas that, because of difficulty in
reaching them or for technical reasons, have not benefited from the NBS. Consequently, in May 2011,
the Irish government announced a new plan to bring broadband connectivity to the entire country by the
end of 2012.192 ComReg began 2012 with a consultation to identify the remaining individual premises in
rural regions that are still not connected, 193 and remedies for next generation access.194 ComReg also

182 31 May 2011: Statistics report on the Icelandic telecommunications market in 2010,
http://www.pfs.is/default.aspx?cat_id=112&module_id=220&element_id=3213.
183 18 Aug 2011 Post- and Telecom Administration Annual report for 2010,
http://www.pfs.is/default.aspx?cat_id=112&module_id=220&element_id=3299.
184 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (December 2010) (accessed Nov. 15, 2011).
185 Id.
186 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (July 2010) (accessed Feb. 11, 2011).
187 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (December 2010) (accessed Nov. 15, 2011).
188 Id.
189 IHS Global Insight, Ireland: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012).
190 16 March 2012: ComReg Decision on the Release of the 800 MHz, 900 MHz, and 1800 MHz spectrum bands,
http://www.comreg.ie/publications/comreg_publishes_decision_on_the_release_of_the_800_mhz__900_mhz_and_1
800_mhz_spectrum_bands.583.104064.p.html.
191 Id.
192 IHS Global Insight, Ireland: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012).
193 Id.
19

published another consultation on April 4, 2012, on the proposed regulation of next generation access
markets.195

ComReg reports that most of Ireland’s users subscribe to packages providing broadband speeds between 2
Mbps – 10 Mbps, but adoption of higher advertised broadband speeds is on the rise.196 Thus, in the
second quarter of 2011, contracts for broadband speeds of greater than 10 Mbps increased at the expense
of lower category speeds. 197 In total, approximately 12.5% of broadband subscriptions were faster than
10 Mbps, compared to 7.3% a year earlier.198

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants199 21.5
0.1
5.1
16.3
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)200 962,120
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 201 53.7

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants202 47.1
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 203 2,105,739

19. Israel

Regulation:
Israel’s Ministry of Communications was established as a separate and distinct ministry in
1971, to cover both telecommunications and the post. The Postal Authority began to operate
outside of the Ministry in 1987. Bezeq, the Israeli Telecommunications Company, was separated
from the Ministry and incorporated in 1984. All regulatory responsibility lies with the Ministry of
Communications. The Ministry has 5 divisions: Engineering and Licensing, Frequency Allocation,
Broadcasting, Cable Television, and Computer Communications (Telematics).

The Ministry’s responsibilities include: formulating telecommunications regulation and policy,
developing telecommunications infrastructures, supervising Bezeq and other telecommunications service
providers, supervising the Postal Authority, setting and auditing postal and communications tariffs,
managing the electromagnetic spectrum, regulating and supervising cable television services and tariffs,
and approving usage of telecommunications equipment in Israel.204
(. . . continued from previous page)
194 4 April 2012: ComReg, Next Generation Access (NGA) Proposed Remedies for NGA Markets,
http://www.comreg.ie/publications/next_generation_access_nga__proposed_remedies_for_nga_markets.583.104068
.p.html.
195http://www.comreg.ie/about_us/comreg_publishes_its_consultation_on_the_proposed_regulation_of_next_genera
tion_access_markets.43.1088.whatsnew.html.
196 14 September 2011: ComReg Quarterly Report Q2 2011,
http://www.comreg.ie/publications/comreg_quarterly_report_q2_2011.583.103931.p.html.
197 Id.
198 Id.
199 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
200 Id.
201 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
202 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
203 Id.
204 Israel Ministry of Communications: http://www.moc.gov.il/135-en/MOC.aspx.
20


Market and Competition

: Internet penetration is growing quickly. Internet in Israel is provided through
the phone and cable infrastructures, by Bezeq and HOT Telecommunication Systems Ltd respectively.
Bezeq provides dial-up and ADSL services, while HOT provides cable Internet services and multi-
channel TV. Due to competition laws, every ADSL or cable Internet user has to pay separately to the
infrastructure provider and to the ISP. There are five major ISPs currently serving both the narrowband
and broadband Internet access market. There are also 70 smaller internet service providers in the Israeli
broadband market. Fixed-line incumbent, Bezeq launched its ADSL service in 2001. Bezeq remains the
largest broadband-service provider in Israel, with over 1 million subscribers as of April 2012.205 Three
cable companies, Golden Channels, Matav and Tevel, launched broadband services in 2002 and now offer
a combined service through their joint venture HOT.

Israel has a well developed mobile market and all three of its cellular providers, Cellcom, Partner
Communications, and Pelephone, offer 3G services. Each was awarded a UTMS license in 2001 but did
not begin offering services until 2004. Cellcom launched its 3G service in June 2004, and differentiated
itself from the other 3G operators in Israel by providing music content services over mobile. As of 2009,
it holds 26.1% of the Israeli 3G market. Pelephone, a subsidiary of Bezeq, launched 3G services in
September 2004, and by 2009, had the highest 3G market share at 40.3%. Partner launched its 3G
services in December 2004 and held 33.7% of the 3G market by 2009. Partner is planning to implement
HSDPA technology (3.5G), which allows download speeds of up to 3.6 MB per second.206

Other Media:

The state broadcasting network, operated by the Israeli Broadcasting Authority (IBA),
broadcasts on two channels, one in Hebrew and the other in Arabic. There are five commercial channels,
including a channel broadcasting in Russian, a channel broadcasting Knesset proceedings and a music
channel supervised by a public body. Multi-channel cable and satellite TV packages provide access to
foreign channels. IBA broadcasts on eight radio networks with multiple repeaters and Israeli Defense
Forces Radio broadcasts over multiple stations. There are about 15 privately-owned radio stations, with
overall more than 100 stations and repeater stations operating as of 2008.207

Topography:

Israel covers approximately 20,700 square kilometers (7,992 sq. mi), an area slightly
larger than New Jersey. Israel’s geography is diverse, with desert conditions in the south, and snow-
capped mountains in the north. The Negev Desert comprises approximately 12,000 square kilometers,
more than half of Israel's total land area.208

Wired

Total

Fiber Cable DSL

Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants209 24.2
0.0
10.0
14.3
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)210 1,847,000
% of households with fixed broadband access (2009) 211 66.3

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants (June
40.3

205 http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/newslog/CategoryView,category,Mobile%2Bsubscribers.aspx.
206 IHS Global Insight, Israel: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012).
207 CIA Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook.
208 Id.
209 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 5, 2011).
210 Id.
211 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (accessed Dec. 5, 2011).
21

2011)212

Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 213 3,068,443

20. Italy

Market and Competition:
In September 2011, Italy’s 4G auction garnered EUR3.95 billion (over
US$5.2 billion), exceeding the Ministry of Economic Development’s maximum forecast of EUR3.1
billion. All four of Italy’s leading wireless operators won spectrum. Telecom Italia and Vodafone each
spent EUR1.26 billion for 2 blocks of 800 MHz spectrum, 1 block of 1800 MHz spectrum, and 3 blocks
of 2600 MHz spectrum. Wind paid EUR1.09 billion for 2 blocks of 800 MHz spectrum and 1 block of
1800 MHz spectrum. Three Italia (3Italia) paid EUR305 million for 1 block of 1800 MHz spectrum and
4 blocks of 2600 MHz spectrum.214

The operators will be able to use the 1800 MHz band by the end of 2011, the 2600 MHz band at the end
of 2012, and the 800 MHz band at the end of 2013. All licenses run until 2029.215

Telecom Italia is continuing pre-commercial 4G trials. All four operators who won spectrum plan to roll
out 4G in 2012. 3Italia has announced that it plans to be the first to launch 4G in 2012. In 2013,
Vodafone plans a “massive launch” and Wind plans to launch in “all major cities.”216

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants217 22.3
0.5
0.0
21.8
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)218 13,507,951
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 219 48.9

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants220 42.4
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 221 25,644,685

21. Japan

Market and Competition:

The focus of the broadband market in recent years is on fiber, which
continues to be the dominant broadband technology in the country and a key driver for overall growth in
broadband services. In the competitive mobile broadband market, NTT DoCoMo is the leader followed
by KDDI and Softbank Mobile.


212 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 5, 2011).
213 Id.
214 See Ministry of Economic Development website, www.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it. (accessed December 6, 2011)
215 See Telecom.Paper website, http://www.telecompaper.com/news/italy-raises-eur-39-billion-in-spectrum-auction.
(accessed December 6, 2011).
216 See Telegeography Globalcomms Database, Italy: (accessed December 7, 2011).
217 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
218 Id.
219 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
220 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
221 Id.
22

Japanese mobile carriers have begun preparing for migration to 4G LTE. The Ministry of Internal Affairs
and Communications allocated spectrum in the 1.5 GHz band to NTT DoCoMo, KDDI, and SoftBank
Mobile, and in the 1.7 GHz band to EMOBILE.222 DoCoMo launched its service in December 2010,
KDDI plans to begin service in December 2012, EMOBILE expects to launch LTE services in 2012.
Softbank Mobile will launch its HSPA service in July 2012.223

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants224 27.0
16.4
4.5
6.0
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)225 34,360,672
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 226 63.4

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants227 80.0
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 228 101,869,228

22. South Korea

Market and Competition:

The Korean government has encouraged companies to invest heavily in the
locally-developed mobile WiMax technology called WiBro (Wireless Broadband). Since KT Corporation
(KT), formerly Korea Telecom, started WiBro service in June 2006, it has invested more than KRW800
billion (US$685 million) to set up networks in Seoul and its vicinity. The service is now available
nationwide, however, the technology has not been readily adopted by Korean consumers and at the end of
June 2010, KT’s WiBro network had only 330,000 subscribers.229 Nevertheless, KT still plans to update
its WiBro service to 10 Mbps connection speeds.230 LTE service began in Korea in July 2011, and as of
April 2012, there were 4 million subscribers. SK Telecom had 2.09 million subscribers, LG Uplus had
1.71 million, and KT had 400,000. Both SK Telecom and LG Uplus offer nationwide LTE data
services.231 LTE connections are expected to reach 10 million by 2015.232

222 IHS Global Insight, Japan: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012).
223 See Softbank, Press Release, “Allocation of 900 MHz ‘Platinum Band.’” (March 1, 2012) available at
http://www.softbankmobile.co.jp/en/news/press/2012/20120301_01/; see also Ericsson, Press Release,
“SOFTBANK Mobile deploys 900 MHz Evolved HSPA network (March 22, 2012) available at
http://www.ericsson.com/thecompany/press/releases/2012/03/1596253.
224 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
225 Id.
226 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
227 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
228 Id.
229 Telecoms Korea, 2010 Top 5 Korea Telecom Market News Spotlights, January 3, 2010, available at
http://www.telecomskorea.com/opinion-8624.html. Asia-Pacific Business and Technology Report, Super-Fast 4G
Wireless Service Launching in South Korea, October 10, 2011, available at
http://www.biztechreport.com/story/1619-super-fast-4g-wireless-service-launching-south-korea.
230 Asia-Pacific Business and Technology Report, Super-Fast 4G Wireless Service Launching in South Korea,
October 10, 2011, available at http://www.biztechreport.com/story/1619-super-fast-4g-wireless-service-launching-
south-korea.
231 Telecompaper.com, LTE subs in Korea hit 4 million, April 19, 2012, available at
http://www.telecompaper.com/news/lte-subs-in-korea-hit-4-million

232 Wireless Intelligence, Over 90% of users connected to wireless internet in South Korea, Oct. 20, 2011, available
at
http://www.wirelessintelligence.com/analysis/pdf/2011-10-20-over-90-of-users-connected-to-the-wireless-
internet-in-south-korea.pdf.
23


Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants233 36.0
20.4
10.4
5.3
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)234 17,604,
503
% of households with fixed broadband access (2009) 235 83.8

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants236 99.3

Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 237 48,542,393

23. Latvia

Market and Competition:

In November 2011, the European Commission approved a support scheme in
Latvia worth around LVL71.5 million (US$139 million) for the deployment of superfast broadband
networks. The program aims to bring Internet access at speeds from 30 Mbps to 100 Mbps to both
consumers and businesses, while it also hopes to further bridge the digital divide between rural and urban
areas.238

Competitors to the incumbent carrier, Apollo (Lattelecom), include Telekom Baltija, Baltkom, Latnet,
Izzi (formerly Telia Multicom), and Vernet. In June 2011, Latvijas Mobilais Telefons (LMT) launched
4G/LTE service.239

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL

Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants240
19.31
Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A
Fixed broadband subs (2010)241 434,876
% of households with fixed broadband access Data N/A

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100
18
inhabitants242

Mobile wireless broadband subs (Q1 2012)243 406,137

233 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
234 Id.
235 KCC. The data for Korea available in the OECD Broadband Portal Table 2a (97.5%) includes mobile broadband
access.
236 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). (terrestrial fixed wireless not
included).
237 Id.
238 See Europa.com, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1323&type=HTML (accessed
December 7, 2011).
239 See Teliasonera website, http://www.teliasonera.com/en/media/press-releases/2011/6/teliasonera-first-with-4g-in-
latvia/ (accessed December 7, 2011).
240 ITU Statistics Database (accessed Nov. 17, 2011).
241 Id.
242 Wireless Intelligence, https://www.wirelessintelligence.com/Index.aspx (accessed May 15, 2012) (HSPA
connections only).
243 Id.
24


24. Lithuania

Regulation:
In March 2011, the Lithuanian Parliament and Prime Minister approved an Information
Society Development Program for 2011-2019, to be coordinated by the Ministry of Transport and
Communications. The Program’s priorities include increasing the public’s skill in using ICT for
development, promoting the use of content and services, and developing infrastructure. The program sets
specific targets such as increasing the percentage of the population who regularly use the Internet from
58% in 2010 to 75% by 2015 and 85% by 2019. Another target is to increase access to broadband from
80% of the population in 2011 to 100% in 2019, to increase the number of households subscribing to
broadband from 49% in 2011 to 80% in 2019, and to increase the number of state and local government
agencies that engage in electronic document exchange to 100 percent.244

Market and Competition:

Teo LT, the leading fixed telephony provider, serves 39% of broadband
subscribers, followed by mobile providers Omnitel (13%) and Bitė (9%).245

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL

Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants246 20.58 Data
Data
Data
Data
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fixed broadband subs (2010)247 684,057
% of households with fixed broadband access Data N/A

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100
19
inhabitants248

Mobile wireless broadband subs (Q1 2012)249 610,769

25. Luxembourg

Regulation:
Luxembourg adopted a law implementing most of the European Union’s Digital Agenda in
January 2011. The Digital Agenda’s aims include creating a single European digital market, improving
standards-setting and interoperability, improving cybersecurity, increasing download speeds, and
enhancing skills.250

Market and Competition:

In September 2011, the largest broadband provider, state-owned PT
Luxembourg, served 67% of Luxembourg’s 161,000 subscribers.251

244 Resolution 301, On Lithuania's information society development program for the year 2011-2019, Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania, www.lrs.lt (accessed December 9, 2011).
245 Report on the Electronic Communications Sector, Q2 2011,
http://www.rrt.lt/download/14833/reportpercent202011%20i%20quarter.pdf (accessed Dec. 8, 2011).
246 ITU Statistics Database (accessed Nov. 17, 2011).
247 Id.
248 Wireless Intelligence, https://www.wirelessintelligence.com/Index.aspx (accessed May 15, 2012) (HSPA
connections only).
249 Id.
250 See European Commission, Digital Agenda for Europe, http://www.ec.europa.eu (accessed Dec. 9, 2011).
251 See www.ilr.public.lu (accessed December 9, 2011).
25

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants252 31.7
0.2
2.9
28.5
0.1
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)253 160,639
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 254 70.3

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants255 54.3
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 256 276,679

26. Mexico

Regulation:

In an effort to strengthen ICT access and development, the Secretaría de Comunicaciones y
Transportes (SCT) launched a national digital agenda (Agenda Digital.mx)257 in March 2012 with
concrete goals and actions by the government to be taken in the short term.
Some of the goals to be met by 2015 include providing 55% of Mexican homes with at least 5 Mbps
broadband access; having fixed and mobile broadband penetration exceed 38 subscribers per 100
inhabitants, universal access by the end of the decade; and having all primary schools, public health
centers and public offices connected to the Internet.

The digital agenda has six main lines of action: (1) implement strategies to continue increasing Internet
penetration in the country, promoting competition in the telecommunications market and supporting a
social coverage policy; (2) use ICT as a tool for equity and social inclusion; programs, plans and policies
must bear in mind the necessary conditions to provide ICT access to the low-income segment, indigenous
groups, people with disabilities, the elderly and women; (3) increase the use of new technologies in
education to promote the development of digital skills; (4) use ICT to increase connectivity in the health
sector, promote telemedicine initiatives and create appropriate systems for the management of healthcare
centers; (5) increase the country’s competitiveness through strategies aimed at promoting work skills and
productivity through the digital media; and (6) consolidate e-government with new technologies that
simplify administrative procedures and coordinate systems between the three branches of the federal
government.

Market and Competition:
ADSL continues to be the most popular form of Internet access, followed by
cable, other technologies (such as dedicated access, ISDN, satellite), and dial-up.258

According to OECD’s broadband statistics for June 2011, Mexico’s broadband penetration (both fixed
and wireless) continue to be among the lowest in the OECD countries, while its broadband prices in terms
of cost per megabit per second are among the highest.

In the wireless broadband sector, there are four national cellular services providers, Telcel, Movistar,
Iusacell and Nextel Mexico with 3G licenses. As of June 2011, Telcel led the mobile market with 70.3%
market share, followed by Movistar (21.6%), Iusacell (4.4%) and Nextel Mexico (3.7%).259 Nextel

252 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (3) (June 2010) (accessed Feb. 11, 2011).
253 Id.
254 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (July 2010) (accessed Feb. 11, 2011).
255 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (December 2010) (accessed Nov. 15, 2011).
256 Id.
257 See Agenda Digital Nacional, at http://www.agendadigital.mx/descargas/AgendaDigitalmx.pdf.
258 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Mexico (2011)(accessed Dec. 5, 2011).
259 Id.
26

Mexico was the sole bidder in the June 2010 auction for a nationwide concession in the 1700 MHz
spectrum, and was awarded the license in October 2010 despite several attempts by competitors, in
particular Iusacell, to block the award.260 Nextel’s 3G network deployment, originally planned to be
completed by the second quarter of 2012, has been delayed to the third quarter of 2012, due to problems
in construction sites and delays in equipment delivery.261 2012.

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants262 10.9
0.0
2.1
8.7
0.1
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)263 11,753,458
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 264 21.1

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants265 0.5
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 266 525,508

27. Netherlands

Regulation:
Beginning in January 2013, the Independent Post and Telecommunications Authority of the
Netherlands (OPTA) will be merged with the Netherlands Consumer Authority and the Netherlands
Competition Authority. The merged authority will be called the Netherlands Authority for Consumers
and Markets (ACM), and will retain independent status. The ACM will focus on three main themes:
consumer protection, industry-specific regulation, and competition oversight.267

Market and Competition

: KPN is the largest player in the fixed-line broadband market, serving
approximately 42% of the market, followed by Ziggo with approximately 27% and UPC with
approximately 12%. DSL subscribership, which currently reaches 55% of the market, has been gradually
declining since early 2010, while cable subscribership has gradually risen to its current 42%. Fiber
commands a small but rapidly growing share (currently less than 1% ) of the broadband market.268
The government of the Netherlands plans to auction off a number of blocks of spectrum in 2012,
including frequencies in the 800 MHz band suitable for 4G mobile data services. The Ministry of
Economy may reserve a significant portion of the spectrum for new entrants.269 Cable provider Ziggo,
which purchased spectrum in 2010, launched its mobile broadband service in July 2011, targeting tablet

260 Id. See also Total Telecom, Mexican Mobile Operators End Spectrum Dispute, Dec. 6, 2011 at
http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?C=1&ID=469748.
261 RCRWireless Americas, NII Holdings to delay 3G launch; posts weak Q4 revenue; EBITDA, Feb. 24, 2012 at
http://www.rcrwireless.com/americas/20120224/carriers/nii-holdings-to-delay-3g-launch-posts-weak-q4-revenue-
ebitda/.
262 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
263 Id.
264 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
265 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
266 Id.
267 See OPTA news release, October 4, 2011, “New Dutch regulator to be called ACM, the Netherlands Authority
for Consumers and Markets. Merger of three regulators to be completed January 1, 2013” at www.opta.nl/en/.
268 See OPTA Market Figures for the Second Quarter of 2011 at www.opta.nl/en/.
269 See Telegeography Comms Update September 16, 2011, “Dutch government looking to ring fence spectrum for
new entrants.”
27

and laptop users.270 After purchasing spectrum in April 2010, Tele2 launched the first 4G network in the
Netherlands in July 2010.271

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants272 38.5
1.3
16.0
21.2
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)273 6,392,000
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 274 79.5

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants275 44.1
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 276 7,318,000

28. New Zealand

Regulation:

In April 2011, New Zealand’s government implemented its Rural Broadband Initiative
(RBI) by signing agreements with Telecom New Zealand and Vodafone for a NZ$285 million (US$213.9
million) infrastructure roll out. The RBI will focus on the 16% of the population living in areas that
experience no or very poor broadband services. The RBI will bring high speed broadband to 252,000
customers and 86% of rural houses and businesses will have access to broadband peak speeds of at least 5
Mbps. Under the program, most rural schools will have access to speeds of 100 Mbps with 1035 rural
schools connecting directly to fiber networks, and 57 schools having point to point wireless connections
capable of speeds of 10 Mbps or more.277 In the first year of the RBI, 520 schools were connected, as
were 10 health facilities.278

Market and Competition:

In August 2011, the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) announced
plans for an auction of mobile spectrum in the 700 MHz band, ahead of the switch-off of analog TV
signals in the country in 2013. MED has indicated that 112 MHz will be made available in the 700 MHz
band. Detailed plans for the auction have not been released, which is scheduled for the fourth quarter
2012.279 In the interim, New Zealand Telecom will conduct live customer trials of LTE in the second half
of 2012 and has begun upgrading is network from 3G to 4G.

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other


270 See Telegeography Comms Update July 19, 2011, “Ziggo enters mobile broadband sphere.”
271 See Tele2 launches the Blackberry solution in the Netherlands at press.rim.com.
272 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
273 Id.
274 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
275 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
276 Id.
277 New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development. Rural Broadband Initiative FAQ, available at
http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/technology-communication/fast-broadband/rural-broadband-
initiative/faqs
278 New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development. Roll-Our Schedule, .available at
http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/technology-communication/fast-broadband/rural-broadband-
initiative/roll-out-schedule
279 New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development. Digital Dividend: Planning for New Uses of the 700 MHz
Band. Available at
http://www.rsm.govt.nz/cms/policy-and-planning/projects/digital-dividend-planning-for-new-
uses-of-the-700-mhz-band
28

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants280 26.0
0.1
1.5
24.4
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)281 1,138,830
% of households with fixed broadband access (2009) 282 63.0
Wireless

Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants283 54.3
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 284 2,380,709

29. Norway

Market and Competition:

Telenor continues to be the leading broadband Internet access provider in
Norway, although its market share in September 2011 had fallen to 49.7%. Mobile broadband
subscription continues to grow, increasing 33.7% in 2010 from 2009.285 Fixed broadband growth slowed
to 3% from the first half of 2010 to the first half of 2011, compared to 5% between the first half to 2009
to the first half of 2010.286

In February 2011, NetCom, Norway’s second largest mobile operator, expanded its 4G network beyond
Oslo to three other major cities. When its 4G network is complete, NetCom plans to offer 4G coverage to
89% of the population. In October 2011, Telenor announced the completion of upgrades to its mobile
network and plans to use the upgraded network for deployment of LTE services in 2012.287

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants288 34.9
5.7
10.3
18.7
0.1
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)289 1,703,817
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 290 82.6

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants291 76.4
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 292 3,732,917

30. Poland


280 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
281 Id.
282 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
283 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
284 Id.
285 IHS Global Insight, Norway: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Dec. 5, 2011).
286 NPT, The Norwegian Electronic Communications Services Market 1st half 2011 (rev. Nov. 14, 2011), available
at

http://www.npt.no/ikbViewer/Content/133773/The%20Norwegian%20Electronic%20Communcations%20Services
%20market%201st%20half%202011.pdf.
287 Telegeography GlobalComms Database, Norway: (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012)
288 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
289 Id.
290 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
291 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
292 Id.
29


Regulation:
In March 2010, the Office of Electronic Communications (UKE) announced the
inauguration of a nationwide project to support the expansion of broadband Internet access networks.
Through the European Union’s Rural Development Plan 2007-2013, Poland has access to a maximum of
approximately 1 billion Euros (US$1.34 billion) in state and European Union funding for building
broadband networks.293

In May 2010, the Polish Parliament passed the Act on Supporting the Development of
Telecommunication Services and Networks. The purpose of the Act is to establish the legal basis for
universal access to telecommunications services through new technologies, in particular broadband
access, and to facilitate investment and remove barriers to telecommunications infrastructure as well as to
improve the disbursement of EU funds for broadband development.294

Market and Competition:
Mobyland (owned by Aero2) and CenterNet launched the world’s first
commercial LTE network in the 1800 MHz band in September 2010, aiming to cover 75% of the
population. Polkomtel, Poland’s largest mobile telecommunications operator by subscribers, was the
latest operator to launch LTE services in December 2011, covering approximately 22% of the
population.295

In Poland, the 2.6 GHz band and the 700/800 MHz bands are earmarked for LTE services, but the tender
for the frequencies, which was originally scheduled for 2010-2011, will be delayed until 2013-2014 as the
military, which uses spectrum in the 2.6 GHz band, is unable to release the spectrum before then.296

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants297 14.3
0.3
4.7
7.8
1.5
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)298 5,460,186
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 299 56.8

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants300 50.9
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011)301 19,453,493

31. Portugal

Regulation:
In January 2011, in response to a request submitted by the Portuguese government, the EU
Commission approved EUR106.2 million (US$ 142.5 million) in state aid to support the deployment of

293 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Poland (2011) (accessed Dec. 5, 2011).
294 2010-2011 Joint Project of the ITU- Telecommunication Development Bureau and the Poland Ministry of
Infrastructure, New Legislative Paradigm Fostering Development of Broadband Infrastructure: Case Study –
Poland
, available at http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/eur/NLP-BBI/CaseStudy/CaseStudy_POL.html.
295 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Poland (2011)(accessed Dec. 5, 2011).
296 IHS Global Insight, Poland: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Dec. 5, 2011).
297 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
298 Id.
299 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
300 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
301 Id.
30

high-speed broadband networks in Portugal. The project aims to provide broadband coverage to at least
50% of the population in the 139 underserved or uncovered rural municipalities by 2013.302

Market and Competition:
As of September 2011, Portugal Telecom continued to lead in market share
for broadband services at 50%, followed by Zon Multimedia with 33.8%, Cabovisão with 8.2%,
Vodafone with 4% and Sonaecom with 3.7%.303

As of December 2010, ANACOM, the telecommunications regulator, assessed that the number of mobile
network subscribers who were eligible to use 3G services had increased to just under 10.5 million,
representing 63.7% of the national wireless subscriber market. Of that total, however, only 30% actually
utilized 3G technology.304

In November 2011, Portugal launched auctions for 4G licenses in the 450 MHz, 800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1.8
GHz, and 2.6 GHz bands. Portugal Telecom, Sonaecom and Vodafone all won spectrum that they plan to
use for deployment of LTE services.305


Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants306 20.3
1.6
8.3
10.3
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)307 2,155,056
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 308 50.3

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants309 64.7
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 310 6,885,232

32. Romania

Regulation:
In the second half of 2012, the National Authority for Management and Regulation in
Communications (ANCOM), the Romanian telecommunications regulator, will auction spectrum for four
licenses in the 800 MHz and 2.6 GHz bands for LTE.311

In June 2011, Romania’s Ministry of Communications and Information Society (MCSI) said it would use
EU funding of EUR86.2 million (US$124 million) to fill gaps in broadband coverage. These funds were
to help address the 10% of the Romania’s population that is not covered by existing broadband
networks.312 In November 2011, however, MCSI said the funding would be delayed until late 2012.313

302 European Commission, State Aid SA.30317 Portugal - High Speed Broadband in Portugal, Jan. 19, 2011,
available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/236635/236635_1199063_71_2.pdf.
303 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Portugal (2011)(accessed Dec. 5, 2011).
304 Id.
305 IHS Global Insight, Portugal: Telecoms Report (2011)(accessed March 23, 2012).
306 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
307 Id.
308 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
309 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
310 Id.
311 IHS Global Insight, Romania: Telecoms Report(2011) (accessed March 23, 2012).
312 IHS Global Insight, Romania : Telecoms Report(2011)(accessed March 23, 2012).
31


Market and Competition:

Orange Romania plans to extend its 43.2 Mbps-capable HSPA+ network to
the cities of Cluj to the northwest, Constanta to the southeast, Iasi to the northeast and Timisoara to the
west. Its 21.6 Mbps HSPA+ network now reaches 20 cities. At the 14.4 Mbps level, Orange Romania
aims to increase its population coverage from 82.7% currently to 98% of the population by mid-2012.314
Vodafone Romania is also planning to add mobile data coverage to all locations where it offers mobile
voice, thus boosting mobile data coverage from the current 90% levels.315

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL

Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants316
13.96
Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A
Fixed broadband subs (2010)317 3,000,000
% of households with fixed broadband access Data N/A

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100
23
inhabitants318

Mobile wireless broadband subs (Q1 2012)319 4,834,782

33. Singapore

Regulation:
In November 2011, Singapore’s Parliament amended the Telecommunications Act to
strengthen the authority of its independent regulator, the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA). One
of the amendments gives the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts – to whom IDA
reports – the power to impose a Separation Order for the transfer of telecommunications assets or
business of a licensee to a separate entity. This is to eliminate barriers to competition, particularly when
one operator controls the network infrastructure as well as participates in retail services. Other
amendments permit the minister to issue Special Administrative Orders to allow the takeover of a
telecommunications service or property by a third party. This is to ensure that a key telecommunication
service remains functional, for public and national interest, in cases of insolvency by an operator. The
amendments also allow the IDA to impose higher penalties, and to suspend or cancel a license if penalties
are not paid on time.320

Market and Competition:

SingTel continues to be the dominant carrier for both fixed and mobile
broadband services with 45.2 and 45.5% market shares, respectively.321 With respect to mobile services,
all three operators have launched 4G LTE services. M1 launched its 4G LTE network across the
(. . . continued from previous page)
313 Id.
314 Id.
315 Id.
316 ITU Statistics Database (accessed Nov. 17, 2011).
317 Id.
318 Wireless Intelligence, https://www.wirelessintelligence.com/Index.aspx (accessed May 15, 2012) (HSPA
connections only).
319 Id.
320 Newschannelasia.com, Parliament passes amendments to Telecommunications Act, November 21, 2011,
available at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1166737/1/.html
321 Point Topic, Broadband Operator Profile, (April 2, 2012) available at http:// point-
topic.com/content/operatorSource/profiles2/singtel.htm.
32

enterprise sector in June 2011.322 SingTel began commercial operations of its LTE services at the end of
2011 and StarHub has been running LTE trials and expects to launch commercial services by the end of
2012.323

In 2006, the government of Singapore announced its Next Generation National Infocomm Infrastructure
(Next Gen NII) plan, which proposed to upgrade the country’s fixed and mobile network infrastructures
to offer speeds of up to 1 Gbps and 1 Mbps, respectively by 2012.324 As of January 2012, the Next Gen
NII broadband network (NGNBN) had been deployed to 86% of the country, and is on track to achieve its
target of 95% coverage by mid-2012. Also in January 2012, there were 100,000 NGNBN subscribers.
Homeowners and businesses which are connected to the NGNBN can subscribe to over 40 fiber-based
broadband access plans offered by 12 retail service providers.325

Singapore’s next generation wireless infrastructure, branded Wireless@SG, offers everyone free wireless
access in high volume pedestrian areas, including the Central Business District, downtown shopping belts
and residential town centers. As of May 2012, the service averaged 15.1 hours per user per month, with
over 5,000 public hotspots across the country. Wireless@SG will be free until March 31, 2013.326

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL

Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants327
24.72
Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A
Fixed broadband subs (2010)328 1,257,400
% of households with fixed broadband access 82
(2010)329

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100
71
inhabitants330

Mobile wireless broadband subs (Q1 2012)331 3,743,001


322 The Straits Times. M1 launches 4G network today. June 21, 2011. Available at
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_682132.html.
323 StarHub News Release, Starhub selects Nokia Siemens network for 4G, GSM modernization, April 10, 2012
available at
http://www.starhub.com/content/corporate/newsroom/2012/04/starhub-selects-nokia-siemens-network-
for-4G--gsm-moderization.html.
324 See Singapore InfoComm Development Authority. Fact Sheet: Updates to the Next Generation National
Infocomm Infrastructure
, available at http://www.ida.gov.sg/doc/Programmes/Programmes_Level2/Annex_2.pdf
and Fact Sheet (March 2012): Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network, available at
http://www.ida.gov.sg/images/content/Infrastructure/nbn/images/pdf/NextGenNBNFACTSHEET.pdf
325 Singapore InfoComm Development Authority. Fact Sheet (March 2012): Next Generation Nationwide
Broadband Network, available at

http://www.ida.gov.sg/images/content/Infrastructure/nbn/images/pdf/NextGenNBNFACTSHEET.pdf.
326 Singapore InfoComm Development Authority. Fact Sheet (May 2012): Wireless@SG, available at
http://www.ida.gov.sg/doc/News%20and%20Events/News_and_Events_Level2/20090728165354/WirelessSG_facts
heet.pdf.
327 ITU Statistics Database (accessed Nov. 17, 2011).
328 Id.
329 http://www.ida.gov.sg/Publications/20070822125451.aspx.
330 Wireless Intelligence, https://www.wirelessintelligence.com/Index.aspx (accessed Apr. 14, 2011) (HSPA
connections only).
331 Id.
33

34. Slovak Republic

Regulation:
In September 2011, the Slovakian parliament passed updates of the country’s
telecommunications law in accordance with EU directives. Changes include allowing for the provision of
3G services in the 900 MHz band and the implementation of mobile number portability.332

The Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of the Slovak Republic (Telekomunikačný úrad
Slovenskej republiky or TÚSR), is planning an auction of 800 MHz and 2.6 GHz spectrum in May
2012.333 TÚSR is considering including conditions on covering areas without broadband access, as well
as reserving blocks of spectrum in the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz bands for a new, fourth operator. 334

Market and Competition:

In July 2011, Telefónica Slovakia launched 3G services providing W-
CDMA/HSPA coverage to approximately 33% of the population. Its 3G services are offered in mobile
data plans, with the basic package offering speeds from 512 kbps, while extended packages offer speeds
of up to 1,024 kbps.335 In September 2011, T-Mobile Slovakia increased coverage of its HSPA+ network
to 83 cities and municipalities. In November 2011, Orange Slovensko also upgraded its mobile network
to HSPA+. Download speeds on Orange’s high-end data packages have increased to 21 Mbps, while a
further premium plan enables speeds of up to 42 Mbps.336 Fixed-line operators are also upgrading their
networks to address increased data demand. In October 2011, DSL competitor Slovanet expanded its 40
Mbps broadband network to cover Turčianske Teplice, a small town in central Slovak Republic.337

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants338 13.5
4.0
1.9
7.5
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)339 731,652
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010)
49.4
340

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants341 32.9
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 342 1,785,534

35. Slovenia

Market and Competition:

Mobile broadband band coverage in Slovenia is below EU average, however,
Mobitel, a subsidiary of fixed line operator Telekom Solvenije, initiated testing of an LTE network in the

332 IHS Global Insight, Slovakia: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012).
333 Telecom Paper, Slovakia plans cap on 800, 1800 MHz band holdings (March 13, 2012) available at
http://www.telecompaper.com/news/slovakia-plans-cap-on-800-1800-mhz-band-holdings.
334 IHS Global Insight, Slovakia: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012).
335 IHS Global Insight, Slovakia: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed December 19, 2011).
336 Id.
337 IHS Global Insight, Slovakia: Telecoms Report, (October 2011)(accessed December 19, 2011).
338 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
339 Id.
340 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
341 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
342 Id.
34

1800 MHz band in June 2011. The test network was deployed in parts of Ljubljana on extra 1800 MHz
spectrum released specifically for testing. Mobitel also plans to upgrade and expand its HSPA network to
21 Mbps, with a further upgrade to dual-carrier HSPA+ (DC-HSPA). Once fully operational, Mobitel plans
to roll out LTE and LTE advanced networks across three spectrum bands the 800 MHz, 1800 MHz and
2600 MHz bands.343 Si.Mobil, Slovenia’s second largest mobile operator completed the expansion of its
3.0/3.5G network in early 2012. Si.Mobil 3G mobile services now cover 90% of the Slovenian population.
However, its recently deployed base stations already support HSPA+ and DC-HSPA that allow data rates of
up to 42 Mbps and the company plans to deploy more LTE ready base stations in 2012.

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants344 23.5
3.5
6.3
13.7
0.1
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)345 480,785
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010)346 62.0

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants347 28.9
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 348 591,908

36. Spain

Regulation:
The assignment of spectrum has been one of the main ICT policy priorities in Spain. In early
2011, the Spanish authorities assigned spectrum to wireless providers, through a combination of auctions
and comparative selection procedures on a technological and service neutral basis. In August, nine of the
11 bidders approved by the government to participate in its auction of mobile spectrum (totaling 270
MHz) were awarded frequencies.349

By the end of 2014, Spain’s plans include a reallocation of the upper part of the UHF band (790 – 862
MHz) which will be made available for advanced communication services.350 In addition, the Spanish
telecommunications regulator, Comision del Mercado de las Telecommunicaciones has recently proposed
extending the scope of the current radio spectrum regulations that permit spectrum trading, to the main
frequency bands allocated for mobile services.351

Market and Competition:
The economic outlook for Spain has worsened over the last year, as it remains
beset by high unemployment and fiscal retrenchment. While this affected the ICT sector, slowing the
previous acceleration of growth in both the broadband and mobile areas in recent months, there are still
signs that the sector is still relatively robust.352


343 IHS Global Insight: Slovenia: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).
344 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
345 Id.
346 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
347 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
348 Id.
349 http://www.cmt.es/cmt_ptl_ext/SelectOption.do?nav=publi_estudios.
350http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/scoreboard/docs/regulatory/es_reg_dev_2011.pdf.pdf.
351http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/scoreboard/docs/regulatory/es_reg_dev_2011.pdf.pdf.
352 http://www.minetur.gob.es/telecomunicaciones/ProgramaMarco/Paginas/index.aspx (accessed March 21, 2012).
35

The latest subscriber data published by Spain’s four main mobile operators, Telefonica, Vodafone,
Orange and Yoigo show there were 56.8 million mobile subscribers in Spain in 2011. This represents a
3.4% annual increase, with a total of 807,000 new subscribers being shared between the four largest
operators.353 The issuance of new spectrum – including spectrum in the 2.6 GHz band – is helping
operators cater to increased demand for data services.

In terms of broadband deployment, DSL is expected to remain the dominant fixed broadband technology,
though mobile broadband connections are predicted to account for an increasing share of the overall
market over the next five years. Spain has continued its commitment (as specified under its national
broadband strategy, “Plan Avanza”) to provide public aid for broadband, with a collective EUR200
million (US $263 million) allocated in 2010 and 2011 in subsidies and interest-free loans.354

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants355 23.7
0.2
4.5
19.0
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)356 10,933,389
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 357 57.4

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants358 42.4
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 359 19,542,586

37. Sweden

Regulation:
The Swedish Post and Telecommunication Authority (PTS) conducted a survey in 2010 to
measure variations in broadband availability at various speed thresholds in Sweden as a whole and in
Swedish municipalities. The results reported that nearly 100% of the population has access to broadband
download speeds of 3 Mbps, and 42% can access 50 Mbps service.360

Market and Competition:
In June 2011, the four largest providers of mobile and fixed broadband were
TeliaSonera (serving 37% of subscribers), Telenor (24%), Tele2 (21%), and Hi3G (16%). Together they
represented 98% of all broadband subscriptions.361

In November 2011, TeliaSonera announced that it had expanded its 4G LTE mobile broadband services
into 161 municipalities. TeliaSonera’s goal is to offer LTE to 663 municipalities by the end of 2012 by
augmenting its existing 2600 MHz LTE frequencies with 800 MHz and 1800 MHz bands won in
spectrum auctions in March 2011 and October 2011, respectively.362

353http://www.cmt.es/cmt_ptl_ext/SelectOption.do?nav=publi_anuales&detalles=09002719800b092f&pagina=1.
354http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/scoreboard/docs/regulatory/es_reg_dev_2011.pdf.pdf.
355 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
356 Id.
357 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (Novemebr 2011) (accessed Dec. 16 , 2011).
358 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
359 Id.
360 See PTS statistics portal, broadband survey at http://www.statistik.pts.se/broadband/index.html (accessed
December 13, 2011.)
361 See PTS Report, The Swedish Telecommunications Market first half-year 2011, November 7, 2011 at
http://www.pts.se/upload/Rapporter/Tele/2011/svtelem-halvar-2011-21-eng.pdf.
362 Telia’s LTE reaches 161 cities, November 14 2011, Telegeography GlobalComms Database.
36


Tele2 and Telenor Sweden formed an equal joint venture to build a fourth-generation network under the
name Net4Mobility in 2009. Commercial LTE-based mobile broadband services were launched over the
Net4Mobility network in November 2010. Net4Mobility plans to expand coverage to 99% of the
population by the end of 2012. Telenor’s 4G services are now available in 116 municipalities throughout
Sweden, while Tele2’s commercial LTE footprint covers 60% of the population. Both Tele2 and Telenor
are also augmenting existing 2600MHz LTE coverage with 800MHz and 1800MHz frequency bands won
in March 2011 and October 2011 respectively.363

Similar to its competitors, Hi3G won 800 MHz spectrum in the March 2011 auction. In early 2012, Hi3G
Sweden selected ZTE to install base stations in order to expand its 3G and 4G network infrastructure. 4G
services will be available by the end of 2012.364

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants365 31.9
9.0
6.3
16.5
0.1
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)366 2,995,000
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 367 82.6

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants368 93.6
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 369 8,778,000

38. Switzerland

Regulation:

In February 2012, the Swiss Federal Communications Commission (ComCom), auctioned
spectrum in several frequency bands, including 800 MHz digital dividend spectrum (for which current
licenses expire in 2013), 900 and 1800 MHz spectrum (some bands are available now, while others will
be available by January 2016), and 2.1 and 2.2 GHz (available now, except for currently licensed UMTS
licenses which expire at the end of 2016). Three companies won licenses: Orange, Sunrise, and
Swisscom. The licenses expire at the end of 2028.370

Market and Competition:
At the end of 2010, ten percent of Swiss households had access to broadband
via fiber optic facilities.371 Swisscom is continuing its trials of 4G (LTE) technology in seven tourist

363 LTE Advanced tests reported by Tele2, Telenor, Telegeography, May 11 2012.
364ZTE deploys 3G/4G infrastructure for Hi3G, Global Telecoms Business, May 9 2012.
365 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
366 Id.
367 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
368 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
369 Id.
370 See ComCom “Orange, Sunrise and Swisscom purchase mobile radio frequencies at auction” at
http://www.comcom.admin.ch/aktuell/00429/00457/00560/index.html?lang=en&msg-id=43520 (site accessed April
25, 2012).
371 See CommComm Annual Report, 2010, http://www.comcom.admin.ch/org/00452/index.html?lang=en (site
accessed April 25, 2012).
37

areas through mid-2012, and plans to use its experience in the trials to deploy LTE, beginning
later in 2012.372

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants373 38.3
0.2
10.6
27.2
0.3
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)374 2,983,281
% of households with fixed broadband access (2008) 375 70.8

Wireless

Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants376 48.7
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 377 3,795,353

39. Turkey

Regulation:

Beginning in 2003, the Prime Ministry and State Planning Organization’s Information
Society Department began an e-Transformation Project. The overall project goal was defined as
promoting information society polices to increase Turkey’s competitiveness. The project’s focus was to
develop policy actions and strategies to enable Turkey to transition to an Information Society.378 A new
Turkish media law went into effect on March 3, 2011 (Law No. 6112 on the Establishment of Radio and
Television Enterprises and Their Broadcasts, or the “Law”), which repeals the pre-existing Law No. 3984
and introduces substantive changes to television and radio broadcasting in Turkey. The new regulatory
regime, whose stated purpose was to respond to current technological developments and to align Turkish
legislation with commitments to the EU, stipulates a complete switchover from analog to digital
broadcasting by 2014. Plans for the digital dividend have not been announced.379

Market and Competition:
Turkish regulator, the Information and Communication Technologies
Authority (BTK), reported that the country's broadband sector has been one of the fastest growing
communications segments with annual growth rate of 16% as of the end of the third quarter of 2011.

Turkcell is the dominant mobile operator in Turkey with 86% of the market. Turkcell’s new products
and marketing approaches, such as its online TV service and a promotion which allows customers to
sample its Internet service free of charge for the first two months before having to commit to subscribe,
have helped maintain its position.380

Competition has heated up as Turkey has implemented regulatory reform as part of the European Union
accession program. Naked DSL offerings made available in early 2011 have increased broadband

372 See http://www.swisscom.com/en/ghq/media/mediareleases/2011/12/20111208_MM_LTE-Pilotprojekt.html
(accessed April 25, 2012).
373 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (December 2010) (accessed Nov. 15, 2011).
374 Id.
375 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (July 2010) (accessed Feb. 11, 2011).
376 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (December 2010) (accessed Nov. 15, 2011).
377 Id.
378 http://broadbandtoolkit.org/Case/tr/2
379 http://www.chadbourne.com/files/Publication/f7967d58-3521-41da-a47d-
02e34dac6446/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/d74f2cf7-78b5-4e99-9e70-
05b015243b13/Turkish_MediaLaw_ca(yuksel).pdf
380 IHS Global Insight: Telecoms Analysis: Turkey: Telecoms Report(2011) (accessed March 23, 2012).
38

penetration. Although ADSL still represents the majority of broadband subscriptions, the market is
evolving as mobile broadband is growing rapidly. In addition, SuperOnline, a subsidiary of the country's
largest mobile operator Turkcell, launched FTTH services at the end of 2009, collecting around 200,000
subscribers during the first year.381


Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants382 10.0
0.3
0.5
9.2
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)383 7,315,418
% of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 384 33.7

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants385 5.0
Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 386 3,640,563

40. United Kingdom

Regulation:
In December 2010, the government issued a broadband strategy, Britain’s superfast
broadband future
, allocating £530 million (US$826 million) to ensure that a digital divide based on
broadband speed does not emerge between urban and rural areas. The strategy sets a goal to make the
UK’s broadband network the best in Europe by 2015. The UK will use a composite index to determine
whether this goal is met, including factors such as speed, coverage, price and choice.387 In order to reach
the broadband goal, the UK’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), responsible for
broadband policy and delivery, aims to ensure that superfast broadband reaches 90% of households by
2015.388 In March 2012, the DCMS announced it had chosen the super-connected cities, which will
receive funding to bring superfast broadband to 1.7 million households.389

In January 2012, Ofcom, the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications
industry, updated its proposal to auction 4G spectrum in the 800 MHz and 2.6 GHz bands. Final auction
design is scheduled to be complete in the summer of 2012 and to extend 4G coverage requirements to
98% of the UK. That exceeds the existing 3G coverage requisite of 95%. The UK government also
proposes to invest £150 million ($240 million) to supplement mobile networks in areas of the country that
receive little or no coverage. The final auction will begin in the fourth quarter of 2012.390

381 www.budde.com Turkey - Telecoms, Mobile, Broadband and Forecasts, October 2011.
http://www.budde.com.au/Research/Turkey-Telecoms-Mobile-Broadband-and-Forecasts.html#execsummary
(accessed Jan. 19, 2012).
382 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
383 Id.
384 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
385 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
386 Id.
387 See Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Britain’s Superfast Broadband Future, December 2010, at
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/10-1320-britains-superfast-broadband-future.pdf.
388 See DCMS: http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/telecommunications_and_online/7763.aspx (accessed May
22, 2012).
389 See DCMS: http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/8931.aspx (accessed May 22, 2012).
390 See Ofcom: http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2012/01/12/proposals-to-extend-4g-mobile-coverage/ (accessed April 19,
2012).
39


Market and Competition:
BT continued to be the largest UK broadband provider in 2011 with a market
share of 29% (1.5 percentage points higher than in 2010). Sky’s market share was up by 1.9 percentage
points to 16%. Other operators market shares remain relatively the same, with O2/Be at 3.5%, and Virgin
Media and the TalkTalk Group at 21.5 and 21%, respectively. Orange and T-Mobile’s joint venture,
Everything Everywhere’s market share was approximately 3.6%.391

Wired

Total

Fiber

Cable

DSL Other

Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants392 32.6
0.5
6.6
25.5
0.0
Fixed broadband subs (December 2011)393 20,274,861
% of households with fixed broadband access (2009) 394 69.5

Wireless


Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants395 44.4
Mobile wireless broadband subs (December 2011) 396 27,642,015


391 The Guardian, UK Broadband market, July 28, 2011, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/
business/2011/jul/28/uk-broadband-market-share (accessed May 24, 2012.
392 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
393 Id.
394 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011).
395 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011).
396 Id.
40


Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Appendix F


Comparing International Broadband Speeds

1.

Introduction


Broadband speeds are often measured in three metrics: the advertised speed, the actual speed, and the
divergence between the advertised and actual speed. Advertised speeds for a given consumer can
generally be obtained either from the ISP serving that consumer or directly from the consumer. The latter
approach may create some measurement error. Actual speed is measured primarily by two methods: (i)
by installing special hardware on an end user’s computer that enables the device to measure actual
download and upload speeds and (ii) by running software based tests.1 For international cities, the most
widely used speed data is based primarily on software based tests conducted by Ookla using
speedtest.net.2 This data can be useful in providing an international comparison, but certain caveats
should be noted. For instance, since this is a software based test, the physical distance of the end user to
the server may be one factor influencing speed measurement. Also, the actual speeds that are observed in
each country are a combination of availability and usage. This means that a low average download speed
for a country could be a reflection of either more people subscribing to low speed broadband or poor
performance and availability of high speed broadband. Despite these shortcomings, the Ookla speed data
help in constructing meaningful international comparisons. Additionally, the data provides other metrics
of network quality that may be used to evaluate broadband performance across countries.

In this appendix, we analyze broadband speeds in 38 countries using Ookla data on actual speeds, as well
as Ookla customer surveys of advertised speeds. Below are some highlights from our analysis:

 The United States ranks 24th (11.6 Mbps) in terms of actual download speeds when these are
weighted by the sample size, based on all available data.
 The United States shows a large increase in the average speed with the percentage of tests
reporting speeds of 10 Mbps or higher increasing from 30% in 2009 to 80% in 2011 (Figure
1c).
 The shortfall index, or the percentage difference between advertised and actual speed,
declined in all countries in 2011 from 2010. In the United States, the shortfall index declined
from 7.06% to 6.80% based on self-reported data from consumers (Figure 4), i.e. consumers
get 94% of advertised speeds, which is approximately consistent with the findings in
Measuring Broadband America report.
 The United States ranks 17th (12.5 Mbps) when based on a stratified sampling technique
using weighted average actual download speed (Figure 3a).

1 The former is usually preferred as the speed measurement is not biased by the subscriber’s computer configuration,
the type of connection between the end user and the ISP’s network, and the physical distance of the end user from
the testing server. For example, SamKnows conducts such hardware based tests for the U.S. and the U.K. For the
U.S., the Federal Communication Commission teamed up with SamKnows to measure the advertised and actual
speeds, and the results are summarized in FCC’s Report titled “Measuring Broadband America – A Report on
Consumer Wireline Broadband Performance in the U.S,” avhttp://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america">ailable at http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-
america. For information about the U.K. speed testing, see http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2011/07/consumers-benefit-from-uk-broadband-speed-surge/">http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2011/07/consumers-
benefit-from-uk-broadband-speed-surge/. However for broad-based international data, software based tests, such as
Ookla’s speedtest.net, are the best available data source.
2 This is based on the NetIndex data provided by Ookla.
1




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334



2. Data Overview
The following analysis is based on the publicly available data provided by Ookla on its Net Index site.3
This dataset comprises approximately 14.4 million observations of daily broadband speeds and spans over
12,000 cities from 159 countries from 2008 to December 2011.4 The main difference between the speed
data gathered by Ookla and other software based tests is the method by which Ookla measures speed.
Most web-based tests measure the average speed of downloading a single file from the internet. Ookla
however, adopts a “fill the pipe” approach.5 This method measures the speed of the broadband
connection when multiple computers or programs are using it.6 Essentially, more data is used to test the
faster connections than slower ones, ensuring the speed data reflect the actual speed experienced by the
typical consumer.7
For this analysis we use the 38 countries selected by the Bureau for the 2011 IBDR..8 Section 103(b) of
the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA) tasks the Commission with “comparing the extent of
broadband service capability (including data transmission speeds and price for broadband service
capability) in a total of 75 communities in at least 25 countries abroad for each of the data rate
benchmarks for broadband service utilized by the Commission to reflect different speed tiers.”9 As
discussed in the report, we interpret “communities” to mean a geographical unit smaller than a nation-
state (the sub-national level).10 Where we have more granular data, as we do for actual speeds, we can
examine “communities,” namely cities. Therefore, we also present city-level speed comparisons. We

3 The data extraction was performed on December 15, 2011 from http://netindex.com/source-data/.
4 There are several daily speed datasets at the country, region and city level that are available from Ookla.
Depending on the level of geographic disaggregation, each dataset contains the name of the country where the speed
test was conducted, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) country code, region name and code for
U.S. States and Canadian Provinces, name of Internet Service Provider, the average download and average upload
speed in Kbps, average latency in milliseconds, average latency variation (jitter) in milliseconds, average packet loss
in percent, average estimated r-factor, the number of tests analyzed to calculate the index, and the average distance
in miles between the client and the server across all tests. We use the daily country and city level data to compare
how countries perform on the speed metric.
5 Frequently Asked Questions, Version 1.02, May 26, 2010, available at
https://support.speedtest.net/forums/20483933-how-speedtest-net-works and http://www.netindex.com/about/.
6 This is done by using multiple threads (simultaneous transfers of data) and carefully "right-sizing" the transferred
payload.” Frequently Asked Questions, Version 1.02, May 26, 2010, pp. 2-3.
7 See Steve Bauer, David Clark, William Lehr, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Understanding Broadband
Speed Measurements”, http://mitas.csail.mit.edu/papers/Bauer_Clark_Lehr_Broadband_Speed_Measurements.pdf">http://mitas.csail.mit.edu/papers/Bauer_Clark_Lehr_Broadband_Speed_Measurements.pdf
(“[T]he Ookla/Speedtest approach – which typically results in higher measured data rates than the other approaches
reviewed – was the best of the currently available data sources for assessing the speed of ISP's broadband access
service. One of the key differences that accounts for this is that the Ookla/Speedtest tools utilize multiple TCP
connections to collect the measurement data which is key to avoiding the receive window limitation. These tests are
also much more likely to be conducted to a server that is relatively close to the client running the test.”).
8 Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece,
Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea (South), Lithuania, Latvia, Mexico, Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United
States.
9 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(3).
10 2012 IBDR at ¶ 34.
2




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


start by discussing the rankings on an aggregate, country level based on speed data compiled by the
OECD and Ookla, and then analyze the disaggregated data.

3. Aggregate Country Rankings Based on Ookla Data

Figure 1a shows the 2011 rankings based on average download speed (Mbps) for each country chosen in
the IBDR. These ranking are based on weighted average speed, i.e. the average speed obtained by
averaging across cities using the sample size in each city as weights.11 The U.S. ranks 24th out of the 38
countries in the IBDR sample with an average speed of 11.6 Mbps. The speed leaders appear to be the
Republic of Korea, Lithuania, Hong Kong, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Mexico, Italy and Turkey are at
the bottom of the distribution. The average download speed in 2011 was 32.0 Mbps for Korea, 11.6
Mbps for the U.S., and 4.5 Mbps for Mexico. The data is shown in Appendix F, Table 1a.


Figure 1a

Country Average Weighted Speed Rankings: 2011

35
orea
ong
K ithuania
)
L ong K eden
bps
30
H wS

M
(

etherlands
e
d

N
25
i
tzerlandwS ulgaria any
ark
bourg
d Spe
B Iceland
epublic
a
Japan erm
o
20
G ingapore
elgium enm
tes
nl
S ortugalP B D rance uxem
ay
F
ta
L zech ungary
i
ngdom
w
C H lovakiaS inland zech R
F

S

o
C orwN ustria ited
15
A n nited K
ealand
e
d D

U

U pain anada
S C

Z
ht
olandP lovenia ustralia ew
S
e
i
g

A
10
I
reland N hile reece urkey
C Israel G T
exico
e
W

Italy
g
M
5
e
r
a

v
A

0
                
Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla (Data drawn on Dec. 15, 2011)
The 2011 data presented in Figure 1a is a one-year snapshot, so it fails to provide information on how
speeds have changed over the years. It is also more prone to distortions from extreme values as these are
raw averages. Therefore, to gain a more nuanced understanding of how speeds have changed over the
years, we compare countries in different speed bands for 2009 and 2011, based on the Ookla actual speed
data.

11 We do not use an unweighted average as this does not control for the total number of tests (sample size) used to
generate the average actual speed. The ranking based on unweighted average speeds may be biased, since each
speed observation gets an equal weight irrespective of how many observations were used to generate it. Ideally, one
should weight the average actual speed for a broadband plan by the number of broadband subscribers in that plan in
a particular city or country, but that data is unavailable at the international level. The best approximation is to
weight the mean city level actual speeds reported by Ookla by the number of tests used to generate the mean.
3




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Figures 1b and 1c, respectively, show the percentage of the tests with actual speeds greater than 5 Mbps
and 10 Mbps in 2009 and 2011. By 2011, in about 80% of the countries, including the United States,
90% of the tests show a download speed of 5 Mbps or higher (Figure1b). Some countries, such as Chile,
Luxembourg, Poland, Ireland, Israel, Turkey, Italy and Mexico, show dramatic increases between 2009
and 2011. Two countries, Finland and Sweden, report slightly lower average speeds in 2011 than 2009.12

Figure 1b

Percentage of Tests Reporting Greater than 5Mbps of

Download Speed, 2009 and 2011

100
80
a
g
e

60
40
P
e
rcent 20
0
2011
2009

Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla (Data drawn on Dec. 15, 2011)

In approximately 37% of the countries, 90% of the tests show an average speed of 10 Mbps or higher by
2011 (Figure 1c). Countries such as Belgium, Slovakia, Norway, Estonia, France and Austria
experienced an increase from less than 40% in 2009, to 75-100% at 10 Mbps or higher download speeds
in 2011. Canada and U.K. have seen an increase from 5% to 80%. Spain, Poland, Ireland and Slovenia
show dramatic increases in average speed as well. Likewise, the U.S. shows a large increase – the
percentage of tests reporting speeds greater than 10 Mbps increased from 30% in 2009 to 80% in 2011.


12 This could be a result of greater uptake in the low speed band offerings in 2011, thus dampening the average
speed, the result of a selection bias, or could be interpreted as a lowering of quality. A selection bias would occur if
lower speed customers took the test in greater numbers in 2011 than in 2009.
4




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Figure 1c

Percentage of Tests Reporting Greater than 10 Mbps of

Download Speed, 2009 and 2011

100
90
80
70
g
e
60
50
40
enta
30
20
Perc
100
2011
2009

Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla (Data drawn on Dec.15, 2011)

4. Speed Comparisons at the City Level
Aggregate country rankings based on averages fail to take into account differences in demand and cost
conditions across cities within a country. Moreover, the number of cities in which the speed tests are
conducted, and the characteristics of those cities, differ by country, skewing the aggregate results further.
To partially solve this problem, we compare speeds at the city level.
In the following analysis, we first compare the broadband speeds (weighted by sample size) of the capital
cities in the 38 countries, including Washington, D.C., and all of the U.S. state capitals (88 cities in
aggregate), based on 2011 data. Figure 2 shows the ranking of capital cities for the top 25th and bottom
25th percentile of the mean download speed distribution (weighted by the sample size). This is done for
ease of exposition, and a detailed table is provided in Appendix F, Table 2a. Seoul (Korea) is ranked in
first place, followed by Vilnius (Lithuania), Hong Kong,13 Stockholm (Sweden), Sofia (Bulgaria).
Several U.S. state capitals compare favorably with their international counterparts. Dover (Delaware)
reports the highest average speed during this period and ranks 13th out of 88 capital cities, with Bismarck
at 14th, Olympia at 16th, and Annapolis at 21st. However, several other U.S. cities are in the bottom
quarter of the distribution with Juneau (Alaska) having the lowest rank.

13 We use the weighted average of the whole country as the speed data are not disaggregated by regions in Hong
Kong.
5




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Figure 2

Capital City Average (Weighted) Speed Rankings: 2011

Top and Bottom 25th Percentile

35
) 30
25
d (Mbps
p
ee
20
n
load S 15
Dow
g
e 10
v
era
A 5
0

Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by the sample size (Data drawn on Dec. 15,
2011)
Capital cities covering large metro areas are more diverse economically than smaller capitals, and
therefore may report lower average speeds. Additionally, the demographic composition of U.S. state
capitals is a large number of low-income residents, with wealthier citizens concentrated in the suburbs.
The scenario is the reverse for most international capital cities. This difference implies that U.S. capitals
will typically report lower broadband speeds due to price-sensitivity. This may be a significant reason
why U.S. state capitals report lower speeds when compared to international capitals. In addition, as
mentioned earlier, software-based speed measures are often impacted by the distance between the
customer and the server. To partially address these issues, we restricted the sample to cities within 100
miles of a server, and then used a random sampling technique to select the two cities from this subset.
This controls for a significant factor that can cause differences in speed, and makes the cities more
comparable.14 Results are presented in Appendix F Table 2b and 2c.
5. Speed Comparisons Using a Stratified Sampling Technique

The aggregate country rankings presented in Figure 1 would be a sufficient basis for international
comparison if the Ookla data set had speed data for all cities for the 38 countries in our sample. However,
given that it does not have data for every city in each of these countries, the aggregate rank may be
biased. A stratified sampling would choose an optimal number of cities from each population strata to
reflect the actual dispersion of cities in a country. For example, suppose a country has 90 small cities (say
low average speed) and 10 large cities (say high average speed). But Ookla may have data for only 10
large cities and 25 small cities. In that case the aggregate rank will show a higher speed that we would
actually get if we had the data for all cities. The stratified sampling would involve choosing 90% from the
small city sample and 10% from the large city sample to come with an aggregate ranking. A stratified
sampling approach divides the sample of cities into different non-overlapping bins according to their

14 We did not do a simple random sampling procedure as this method may yield cities that differ significantly,
comparisons may be flawed. We restricted the sample to cities within 100 miles of a server, and then used a random
sampling technique to select the two cities from this subset. This controls for a significant factor that can cause
differences in speed, and makes the cities more comparable.
6




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


population level, and then draws a sample from each bin. If large cities have inherently different
broadband characteristics from smaller and sparsely populated cities, then a stratified sample will achieve
greater precision than an aggregate ranking. Additionally, analyzing each stratum separately can give
valuable insights about how demography can drive broadband characteristics. We implement this
methodology on a country by country basis for non-U.S. countries and on a state by state basis for the
United States.

There are two main steps when implementing a stratified sampling approach: (a) choosing the overall
optimum sample size and (b) choosing the sample size in each strata. Choosing the overall optimal
sample size15 requires three inputs; the estimated variance in the population, the confidence interval, and
the confidence level. In this case, the estimated variance (σ2) is the calculated variance in speed obtained
from the measured speed data. Large estimated variances increase the optimal sample size and vice versa.
The confidence interval (δ) reflects the level of precision with which the sample predicts the true values,
i.e. it is a measure of the sampling error and is often referred to as the margin of error. It is fairly standard
to choose between ±1% and ±5% confidence interval. We choose a ±2% confidence interval to be
conservative. This implies that the true population mean speeds will lie within ±2% of the estimated
sample mean. The confidence level shows the risk a researcher is willing to accept that the sample is
within the average of the population. We choose a 95% confidence level which is standard in the
literature. These levels correspond to percentages of the area of the normal density curve. A 95%
confidence interval covers 95% of the area under the normal bell curve, or alternatively, the probability of
observing a value outside of this area is less than 5%. This implies if the speed data was sampled 100
times, 95 of these samples would have the true (population) mean speed within the margin of error
specified earlier. When calculating the optimal sample size, we will use the z-value16 (1.96) that
corresponds to the 95% confidence level for the normal density curve. Thus the optimal sample size (n)
is given by:

We use the above formula to calculate the optimal sample size for the United States and non-U.S.
countries separately. As explained above, we use the following values, z=1.96 and δ=2. We estimate the
variance of speed (σ2) from the monthly Ookla city-level speed data for each country, and the results are
presented in Appendix F, Table 4a. The optimal sample for each country is in Appendix F, Table 4b.

Next we use population levels17 to determine the appropriate strata and the proportional allocation rule to
choose the optimal sample size (number of cities) in each stratum. This rule specifies that the proportion
of cities in each sample stratum must mirror the proportion of cities in the population strata. Strata
sample sizes are determined by the specification given below:

Where: ns is the sample size in each stratum, Ns is the total number of cities in each stratum, N is the total
number of cities in each country, and n is the total (optimal) sample size.


15 See Bartlett, Kotrlik and Higgins; “Organizational Research: Determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey
Research,” Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), Spring 2001.
16 The z-value for 95% confidence level specifies the point on the standard normal density function where the
probability of observing a value greater than z (1.96) is equal to 0.025 or the probability of observing a value less
than z (1.96) is equal to 0.975.
17 Ideally we would use the population density data to create the strata, but data availability issues prevent us from
using this variable.
7




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


For example, if 20% of the U.S. population lives in cities of 20,000 inhabitants or less and our optimal
sample size for the U.S. is 50, then 10 out of the 50 cities in the final stratified sample should have less
than 20,000 inhabitants. To implement this, we collect the latest available population data on over 12,000
major cities18 in the 37 non-U.S. countries included in the 2012 IBDR. For the United States, we collect
data for over 2500 cities from the 2010 U.S. census.19 We show the population proportion in each strata
for the U.S. and non-U.S. cities20 in Appendix F, Tables 3a and b.

Using the number of cities covered in the Ookla data, and the associated variance in download speed in
those cities in 2011, we first determine the optimal sample of cities that we need. Next, we construct 4
population strata for cities. Very small cities have less than 25,000 inhabitants, small cities have greater
than 25,000 and less than 50,000 inhabitants, medium cities have greater than 50,000 and less than
100,000 inhabitants, and large cities have greater than 100,000 inhabitants. Based on this, we determine
the proportion of cities that falls under each stratum, in each country or U.S. state. These proportions
combined with the optimal number of cities that need to be covered in each country determine the final
stratified sample. Using the stratified sample we construct country speed ranks. Figure 3a shows this
country ranking.21 We find these are consistent with our earlier results with Korea, Hong Kong and
Sweden in the leading ranks, and United States ranked 18th out of 38 countries (12.5 Mbps). The data is
presented in Appendix F Table 3c.
 

18 For most countries the latest available population data is from 2010 and 2011. The exceptions are: Australia
(2006), Canada (2006), Chile (2002), France (2009), Ireland (2006), Republic of Korea (2009), Portugal (2008), UK
(2008).The data is collected from “Thomas Brinkhoff: City Population, http://www.citypopulation.de”. We collect
data on over 6400 major cities from this website. The definition of major cities varies by country. For most countries
it is cities with a population of 20,000 or more. For Iceland it is cities with greater than 500 inhabitants and Estonia
has no lower limit. For New Zealand, it includes cities with population greater than 2500 inhabitants, for
Luxembourg it is 3000, and for Ireland it is 3500. For Denmark, Lithuania and Slovenia it covers cities with greater
than 5000 inhabitants. For Portugal it is 7500 inhabitants. For Australia, Canada, Norway and Sweden it is cities
with greater than 10,000 inhabitants. For Germany, it is 15,000 inhabitant or more. For UK and Italy major cities are
those with populations greater than 50,000 inhabitants. Additionally, there is another 5500 smaller cities and towns
in the Ookla data set that are not present is the major city population data. We assume that the population of these
smaller Ookla cities is lower than the minimum population cutoff reported in the population data.
19 US Census: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html
20 These are aggregate percentages for non-U.S. cities. However, the stratified sampling is done at the country level,
and thus the proportions in each strata vary by country.
21 These rankings are based on average weighted download speeds.
8




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Figure 3a

Average (Weighted) Speed Rankings by Country, 2011

(Based on stratified sampling)
40.00
35.00
(Mbps)
30.00
Speed
25.00
n
load
20.00
Dow
15.00
hted
10.00
e Weig
5.00
v
erag
A 0.00
 
 
Source: Based on Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by the sample size (Data drawn on
Dec. 15, 2011)  

Figure 3a, however, masks the considerable variation that exists amongst U.S. states. Comparing
aggregate United States averages with those of other countries may be less meaningful than a more
disaggregated approach that takes such variation into account. Therefore, we now implement a
disaggregated stratified sampling approach for the U.S., where each state is the basis of the sample.
Figure 3b, shows the speed rankings for the top and bottom 25% of the combined non-U.S. country and
United States state data based on this approach. We find that Massachusetts is ranked 11th, Delaware 13th
and the 15th, 16th and 17th place are taken by Rhode Island, Maryland, and New York. The data is
presented in Appendix F Table 3c.

       
9




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Figure 3b

Average (Weighted) Speed Rankings by US States and International

Countries, 2011

Top and Bottom 25th Percentile

(Based on stratified sampling)
40
35
bps)
(M 30
d

Speed
25
n
loa
o
w 20

D
h
ted) 15
eig
W 10
e (
v
erag 5
A
0
Source: Based on Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by the sample size (Data drawn on
Dec. 15, 2011)  

In addition to analyzing the overall speed ranks based on the stratified sampling approach, we can also
show how each country ranks within each stratum. Appendix F Tables 4a-4d present these results. We
find that Korea and Hong Kong command the top ranks in all population stratum in which they are
present.22 The aggregate rank for Massachusetts (Figure 3b) is driven by the speed performance in less
populated cities, i.e. the cities in stratum 1 and 2, where the average download speed is around 18.5 Mbps.
In the large city stratum (Appendix Table 4d), Massachusetts is in the lowest 25th percentile, with an
average speed of 10 Mbps. Delaware, which is ranked 13th in the aggregate (Figure 3b) shows a similar
pattern. Assimilating the information about the significant variation amongst U.S. states, and in different
population strata, may lead to a more nuanced understanding about the performance of broadband in the
United States.  
6. Advertised versus Actual Speed

22All countries/states may not be in this data if there are no cities in that particular population stratum for that
particular country/state in 2011.
10




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


To investigate how actual speed data compares with the advertised speeds, we construct a shortfall index
(Appendix Table 5) based on the Ookla promise index data.23 The data on advertised speed is collected
by Ookla from a survey of the consumers who take the speed test. Thus, apart from the bias due to self-
reporting, this method ties the advertised speeds to actual plans, and avoids the problem of picking up
plans that may not have many subscribers, a criticism often targeted at web harvest data. The shortfall
index shows the percentage difference between advertised and actual speed. From Figure 4, three things
are obvious. First, the advertised download speeds in all countries are overstated. Second, there is a wide
variance in the shortfall index and some countries, such as Greece, have large differences between the
advertised and actual speed. Third, the shortfall index is lower for all countries in 2011 when compared
to 2010. Therefore, indices that rank countries based on advertised speeds will overstate the rank for
countries with a high shortfall index compared to countries with a low shortfall index.

Figure 4

60

Shortfall Index in 2010 and 2011

50
(% Difference Between Advertised and Actual Speed)
)
(%
40
30
n
d
e
x
l
I
United States
al
20
tf
or
Sh
10
0
2011
2010

Source: Promise Index from Net Index Data by Ookla (Data drawn on Dec. 15, 2011)
OECD versus Ookla Data: Country Speed Comparisons

i. September 2010 Data
The OECD publishes data on advertised speeds by country. The data is constructed from surveys of
broadband plans that are offered in each country, and the plans are chosen based on a market baskets
approach. The Ookla data, as explained earlier, is obtained from actual speed tests by consumers.
The advertised speeds in Ookla are obtained from surveying consumers who take the speed test. The

23 The promise index is the median ratio of actual download speed to the advertised download speed subscribed to
by the consumer. The shortfall index is: 1 – (Actual Speed/ Advertised Speed).
11




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


OECD September 2010 data24 show that the U.S. is 29th out of 34 countries with an average
advertised download speed25 of 14.6 Mbps. For the same month, the Ookla data shows an average
actual download speed of 11.3 Mbps for the United States and has it ranked 18th out of 34 OECD
countries. The rankings based on the advertised speeds obtained from Ookla are not much different
than the rankings based on their average speed reports.26 Figure 5, shows the advertised and actual
speeds for 2010.

Figure 5

Actual versus Advertised Speed, September 2010

100
(Mbps) 80
United States
60
Speed
40
n
load
o
w 20
e D
0
v
erag
A
Actual Speed (Ookla)
Advertised Speed (Ookla)
Advertised Speed (OECD)

Source: Net Index data (Actual Download Speed, Promise Index) from Ookla and OECD data from the OECD
Broadband Portal (Table 5a)27
ii. September 2011 Data
The September 2011 data shows that when OECD (average) speeds are compared, the U.S. is ranked
18th out of 34 countries28 with an average advertised download speed29 of 29.4 Mbps.30 If we adjust

24 This data was originally inhttp://www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband"> http://www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband, Table 5a. However, this has since been updated
with the 2011 data and is no longer available on the OECD website.
25 The OECD data source notes that “The offers used to calculate the average speed include all combinations of
single, double and triple-play offers in the survey. This is because some top-speed broadband subscriptions only are
available as part of a package.”
26 The U.S. average advertised speed from Ookla is 12.2 Mbps for September 2010.
27 The data was available at
http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3746,en_2649_34225_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html">http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3746,en_2649_34225_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html. It is no longer available
and has been updated to 2011 data.
28 The rank would be 22nd if the countries in the IBDR were added to the list.
12




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


the OECD advertised speeds with the shortfall index (Appendix Table 5), then the U.S. rank is 16th.31
When ranked by mean actual speed (11.9 Mbps in September 2011), the U.S. ranks 15th out of 34
OECD countries based on the Ookla data. The IBDR includes four countries not in the OECD
(Bulgaria, Hong Kong, Lithuania, and Singapore). If the ranking is based on the IBDR countries, then
United States ranks 19th out of 37 countries. In the OECD data there is a large dispersion between the
mean and median advertised speed for the United States: the mean is twice the median. Figure 6
shows the actual and advertised speeds obtained from Ookla,32 and the advertised speeds from the
OECD data for 2011.

Figure 6

Actual versus Advertised Speed, September 2011

150
bps)
M
e
d ( 100
United States
o
ad Spe 50
e

Downl
0
e
r
ag
Av
Ookla_Actual
Ookla_Advertised
OECD_Advertised

Source: Net Index data (Actual Download Speed, Promise Index) from Ookla and OECD data from the OECD
Broadband Portal (Table 5a).33
As is apparent in Figure 5 and 6 (Appendix F Table 6), both the actual and advertised speeds reported by
Ookla are substantially lower than the OECD advertised speeds for all countries.34 One likely

29 The OECD data source notes that “The offers used to calculate the average speed include all combinations of
single, double and triple-play offers in the survey. This is because some top-speed broadband subscriptions only are
available as part of a package.”
30 When the median advertised download speeds are compared however, the U.S. rank is 19th, with the U.S. median
speed being 15.7 Mbps. Thus the average speed appears to be influenced a few high speed offers. The median
ranking may be a better comparison as it is unaffected by extreme values.
31 Japan and Korea are missing from the Promise Index data from Ookla.
32 The Net Index dataset publishes the Promise Index, which is a ratio between the median actual and advertised
speeds. We have used this ratio to obtain the Ookla mean advertised speed based on the reported actual download
speed. We calculate: Advertised Download Speed = Actual Download Speed/ median_download_ratio. Note that the
median download ratio is based on the response of users who actually filled the survey after taking the speed test
online, and is a much smaller subset of the number of people actually taking the speed test (between 0.2 and 3%).
Additionally, this data is available only for 36 of the 38 IBDR countries for September 2011 (Japan and Korea are
missing).
33 http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3746,en_2649_34225_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html">http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3746,en_2649_34225_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html
13




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


explanation is that the OECD survey is based on advertised speeds for all plans offered by broadband
companies in a country, irrespective of uptake, while the Ookla data reports advertised speeds only for
plans that consumers have. For example, companies may offer a 100 Mbps plan, which few customers
may actually buy. The OECD data weights the 100 Mbps speed equally with other plans, whereas the
Ookla data does not.35 In addition, the OECD advertised speed is based on surveys administered by the
OECD, while the Ookla data is based on self-reporting by users who take the speed test. One could argue
that users do not often have good information about the advertised speed that their carrier had promised
and may be filling in a number close to actual speed displayed when they take the test.
We also note that there are large differences in the average speed data from September 2010 and 2011.
For example, in the OECD data, the United States average speed doubled in just one year. The average
speed for Japan is approximately 156 Mbps in 2011 as compared to 80 Mbps in 2010. For France, the
average speed declined to 53 Mbps in 2011 from 67 Mbps in 2010. The differences in these speed ranks
based on the OECD and Ookla data warrant a deeper analysis of data collection techniques and their
comparability.
7. Other Quality Measures

The focus of our discussion so far has centered on the speed of broadband connection, which measures
the average rate at which information packets travel from a source to a destination. There are, however,
other metrics of network quality that may provide insight about comparative broadband performance
across countries. The data provided by Ookla for these performance measures are for some selected
international cities only. The coverage is substantially lower than that of the speed data. In the speed
data, there were approximately 7000 non-U.S. cities and over 4700 United States cities covered by Ookla.
For the other quality metrics, the data covers 398 non-U.S. cities and 305 United States cities. All metrics
are based on the average of all cities within each country, weighted by the number of total tests that
generated the city average. We discuss three such metrics: latency, jitter, and packet loss. The data is
presented in Appendix C Tables 7a-9b.

i. Latency

Latency refers to several types of delays typically incurred during network data processing, and is
typically measured in milliseconds (ms). One common measure is round-trip latency, which
measures the amount of time it takes a data packet to travel from a source to a destination and back.
More precisely, it is measured as the sum of time from the start of packet transmission by a source to
the start of packet reception by a destination plus the time that it takes for the packet to travel back
from the receiving destination to the source.36 Latency is often affected by factors such as the
properties of the physical medium through which the network packets are transmitted or processing
delays which may occur when the packets need to pass through proxy servers.

In Figure 7a, we plot the average (weighted) latency for the IBDR sample countries. Korea has the
lowest latency and Mexico has the highest. The U.S. ranks 24th when ranked in terms on average

34 One caveat when comparing the rankings based on these data is that the two come from different sources. The
actual speed data is from Ookla is obtained from people who take the speed test online. The OECD data is based on
a limited number of offers and the associated advertised speeds.
35 Another explanation could be the method we used to obtain the advertised speed from the Ookla data. If the
relation between the mean advertised and mean actual speeds is different from that of the median, it may create this
difference.
36 This excludes the amount of time that a destination system spends processing the packet.
14




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


weighted latency. This ranking however, masks the substantial differences that exist within the U.S.
Therefore in Figure 7b, we plot the U.S. states.37 We find that Rhode Island has the lowest latency,
followed by Bulgaria, Korea and the Czech Republic. New Jersey has the highest latency, with New
Hampshire, Iowa and Connecticut at the top of the distribution. We find that there is wide variation
within the U.S, with about half of the states in both the upper and lower 25th percentile.

Figure 7a

Country Average (Weighted) Latency Rankings 2011

120
100
exico
s
)

stonia M
(m
c
y

80
eden E
n
te

rance anada w
a
C S

L
)

ark
pain
tes
Israel S
l
ovenia F
t
e
d

60
ay
i
ngapore S
h
any
hile
reece
ta
S
ustralia
Italy enm

S

e
i
g

ong
urkey
ealand orw
oland C
P
Ireland G A
D
ustria
i
nland T itzerland Z N ingdom erm
e
(W

40
ortugal elgium A
i
ted

w
G
n
g
ungary ithuania P B
etherlands F
S ew
orea

U

e
r
a

epublic lovakia
ong K N
N
S H L
H
nited K
v
K ulgaria

A

U
B
20
zech RC
0



37 The latency, jitter, and packet loss data is available for only 38 states. The states not included are: Delaware,
Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.
15




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334









ii. Jitter

Jitter refers to the variance of latency over time, and is measured by the average deviation from the
mean latency of the network. In Figure 8a, we plot the average (weighted) jitter for IBDR countries.
The U.S. is again in the middle of the rankings. Korea has the lowest and Mexico has the highest
jitter. It appears that countries that perform well in speed metrics also have low latency and low jitter.
In Figure 8b, we disaggregate the data by U.S. states. We find that Iowa has the lowest jitter,
followed by Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma. New Hampshire, New Jersey and Connecticut once
again are at the very top of the distribution, with high jitter numbers. Massachusetts is in the upper
25th percentile for jitter, but it was ranked 8th in average speed. We also find that although Iowa has
high latency (Figure 7a), it has low jitter (Figure 7b).

16




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Figure 8a

Average (Weighted) Jitter Rankings 2011

45
40
s
)
m
35
anada exico
t
t
e
r
(

30
ay
hile
M
ingdom ingapore C
s
)
Ji

nce eden
orw
S
25
te
ra w stonia
l
ovenia C
t
e
d

ta
S E N itzerland S
ey
ark any
ong
w
20
ugal
oland
i
nland

S
F ustralia Israel F
S
nited K
e
i
gh

d
U
pain
urk
i
thuania P
A

W
(

15
ungary T Ireland enm erm ort
G P ong K
i
te

reece
ustria ealand elgium epublic Italy S H
D
H etherlands L
n
ulgaria lovakia A
N

U

r
age
10
S

Z B
epublic of G B
ew

Ave

N
5
zech RC
0
orea, RK




iii. Packet Loss

When packets of data travelling across the network fail to reach their destination, the phenomenon is
termed packet loss. Packet loss can occur because of network congestion, signal degradation, faulty
network drivers or networking hardware, and the distance between the origin of the transmitted data
and the destination. When packet loss occurs due to these reasons, it can be used as a quality loss
metric. In some cases, however, packet loss may be intentional, and intended to slow down specific
services. Therefore, packet loss statistics, while still useful in measuring connection reliability, is
more nuanced.

17




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


In Figure 9a, we plot the average (weighted) packet loss for the IBDR countries. Israel leads all other
countries and has the lowest packet loss. Greece performs the worst in this metric. The U.S. is in the
middle. To understand the variations within the U.S., we look at the states in Figure 9b. In Figure
9b, we plot the average (weighted) packet loss for the top and bottom 25th percentile of
countries/states. We find that given our sample, Connecticut has the lowest packet loss, followed by
Israel, New Jersey, Estonia and Korea. New Jersey and Connecticut, which had performed poorly in
terms of latency and jitter, now perform well. Finland, Greece and Alabama are at the top of the
distribution, with very high average packet loss. Depending on which characteristics were valued by
consumers, the relative performance of the countries and states would be evaluated differently.

Figure 9a

Country Average (Weighted) Packet Loss Rankings 2011

12
reeceG
10
o
s
s
L
et
8
a
ck
urkey Finland
testa epublic ingdom
ealand
exico T
6

S

land ungary ustria M
any

Z
H A
g
h
t
e
d
)
P
ew elgium
ei
ay
i
ted

nce
ustralia erm n zech R nited K ulgaria
Spain Ire
B Poland Portugal N B
(W
4
ong epublic of
ark
G

U

C U
orw
Singapore A
eden
etherlands
enm
N Italy Fra
g
e4
el
i
tzerland
anada
hile
N
D
stonia ong K orea, R
i
thuania
Sw C Slovakia C
2
v
era
Isra E H K
Slovenia L Sw
A
0


18




Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1334


Figure 9b

Country and US State Average (Weighted) Packet Loss Rankings 2011

(Top and Bottom 25th Percentile)
12
ecereG
10
s
s
a
a
lin
m

Lo
et
ro
a
a
b
8
ey
la
Finland
ack
ri
C

A

a
u
urk
thro
s
i
sso

6
a
ustri exico
T

N

ia ealand
o
x ungary A M

M

g
h
t
e
d
)
P
d
Z
h
n
ugal
land a
elgium
H
ei
eorg ew Ire

Te

Id

Spain B
a
W
4
ark
Poland Port G N
t
e (
ong
and
ska
e Isla
cu
rsey
a d
h
ag
e
r
a
eden
w o
ta
J
itzerl anada eb
h
hile enm
ecti
C

N

Sw Slovakia

Io R

C D

U

v
er
n rael ew stonia ore
ong K ithuania
A
2
L Sw
n Is

N

E K Slovenia H
oC
0

19




Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 1

Average (Weighted) Actual Download Speeds (2011): All Available Data



Download

Rank

Download

Rank

Country

Speed (Mbps)

Country

Speed (Mbps)

Korea 32.01
1
Finland 15.49
20
Lithuania 30.81
2
Czech
Republic
14.91
21
Hong Kong
28.39
3
Norway
14.00
22
Sweden 27.37
4
Austria
12.59
23
Netherlands 24.31
5
United
States 11.64
24
Switzerland 21.24
6
United
Kingdom
11.24
25
Bulgaria 19.85
7
Spain
11.05
26
Iceland 19.68
8
Canada
10.94
27
Japan 19.08
9
Poland
9.39
28
Germany 18.05
10 Slovenia
8.63
29
Singapore 17.12
11 Australia
8.46
30
Portugal 17.06
12 Ireland
8.27
31
Belgium 17.02
13 New
Zealand 8.02
32
Denmark 17.01
14
Chile
6.46
33
France 16.60
15 Israel
6.32
34
Luxembourg 16.42
16 Greece
6.06
35
Estonia 15.97
17 Turkey
6.03
36
Hungary 15.83
18 Italy
5.03
37
Slovakia 15.60
19 Mexico
4.46
38
Note: Actual (average) weighted download speed data computed from the city level daily data from
Ookla. The average weighted speed was obtained by averaging across cities using the sample
size in each city as weights.

1


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334


Appendix Table 2a

Average (Weighted) Download Speeds (2011): Non-US Capital Cities & US State Capitals

and Washington D.C.

Average (Weighted)
Download Speed

Country City

(Mbps)

Rank

Korea, Republic of Seoul
31.9
1
Lithuania Vilnius
31.3
2
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
28.4
3
Sweden Stockholm
24.7
4
Bulgaria Sofia
24.3
5
Finland Helsinki
23.4
6
Switzerland Bern
22.5
7
France Paris
21.4
8
Netherlands Amsterdam
21.2
9
Iceland Reykjavík
20.5
10
Germany Berlin
20.4
11
Portugal Lisbon
20.1
12
US - Delaware
Dover
18.9
13
US - North Dakota Bismarck
18.4
14
Luxembourg Luxemburg
18.3
15
US - Washington
Olympia
18.2
16
Slovakia Bratislava
17.3
17
Singapore Singapore
17.1
18
Denmark Copenhagen
17.0
19
Hungary Budapest
16.9
20
US - Maryland
Annapolis
16.3
21
Estonia Tallinn
15.6
22
US - South Dakota Pierre
15.6
23
Japan Tokyo
15.5
24
US - Virginia
Richmond
15.0
25
US - Florida
Tallahassee
14.9
26
Norway Oslo
14.8
27
Austria Vienna
14.4
28
US - Wisconsin
Madison
14.3
29






2


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334


Appendix Table 2a Continued

Average (Weighted) Download Speeds (2011): Non-US Capital Cities & US State Capitals

and Washington D.C.


Average (Weighted)
Download Speed

Country City

(Mbps)

Rank

US - Oregon
Salem
14.3
30
US - Minnesota
Saint Paul
14.2
31
US - Pennsylvania
Harrisburg
13.7
32
Belgium Brussels
13.6
33
US - Rhode Island
Providence
13.6
34
US - New Jersey
Trenton
13.5
35
Czech Republic
Prague
13.4
36
US - New Hampshire
Concord
13.3
37
US - New York
Albany
13.1
38
US - Nevada
Carson City
13.1
39
US - Alabama
Montgomery
13.1
40
US - Arizona
Phoenix
12.4
41
US - Oklahoma
Oklahoma City
12.1
42
US - Illinois
Springfield
11.8
43
US - Texas
Austin
11.7
44
US - Utah
Salt Lake City
11.6
45
US - North Carolina
Raleigh
11.1
46
US - Louisiana
Baton Rouge
11.0
47
US - Missouri
Jefferson City
10.9
48
US - Colorado
Denver
10.8
49
US - Tennessee
Nashville
10.8
50
United Kingdom
London
10.7
51
Canada Ottawa
10.6
52
US - Wyoming
Cheyenne
10.5
53
US - Kansas
Topeka
10.5
54
US - New Mexico
Santa Fe
10.1
55
US - Indiana
Indianapolis
9.9
56
Spain Madrid
9.9
57
New Zealand
Wellington
9.7
58





3


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334


Appendix Table 2a Continued

Average (Weighted) Download Speeds (2011): Non-US Capital Cities & US State Capitals

and Washington D.C.


Average (Weighted)
Download Speed

Country City

(Mbps)

Rank

US - Connecticut
Hartford
9.7
59
Poland Warsaw
9.6
60
Ireland Dublin
9.4
61
US - Ohio
Columbus
9.4
62
US - California
Sacramento
9.3
63
US - Massachusetts
Boston
9.3
64
Slovenia Ljubljana
9.3
65
US - Michigan
Lansing
9.0
66
US - Arkansas
Little Rock
9.0
67
US - Mississippi
Jackson
8.9
68
US - D.C.
Washington DC
8.7
69
US - Idaho
Boise
8.7
70
US - Georgia
Atlanta
8.4
71
US - South Carolina
Columbia
8.1
72
US - Nebraska
Lincoln
8.1
73
US - Maine
Augusta
7.3
74
Chile Santiago
7.0
75
US - Montana
Helena
6.8
76
US - Hawaii
Honolulu
6.7
77
US - Iowa
Des Moines
6.6
78
Turkey Ankara
6.3
79
Greece Athens
6.3
80
Australia Canberra
6.1
81
US - West Virginia
Charleston
5.8
82
US - Vermont
Montpelier
5.8
83
Mexico Mexico
City
5.6
84
Israel Jerusalem
5.4
85
Italy Rome
5.2
86
US - Kentucky
Frankfort
3.7
87
US - Alaska
Juneau
3.0
88



4


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 2b

Average (Weighted) Download Speeds (Mbps) (2011) of Two Cities within 100 miles of a

Server for Non-US Countries

Country
City
Down Speed
Country
City
Down Speed
Australia
Caringbah
11.66
Italy
Sacile
3.59
Australia
Kingswood
10.10
Italy
Beinasco
4.41
Austria
Mattersburg
6.28
Japan
Ageo
24.89
Austria
Gmunden
10.20
Japan
Hachioji
22.78
Belgium
Hoogstraten
23.48
Korea
Suwon
34.94
Belgium
Temse
22.77
Korea
Yongin
35.34
Bulgaria
Gotse Delchev
20.22
Lithuania
Plunge
21.44
Bulgaria
Petric
22.20
Lithuania
Utena
33.79
Canada
Essex
2.73
Luxembourg
Betzdorf
6.35
Canada
Mont-Tremblant
6.45
Luxembourg
Itzig
12.43
Chile
Maipú
6.13
Mexico
Mexicali
3.07
Chile
Villa Alemana
6.67
Mexico
Chicoloapan
5.91
Czech Republic
Karviná
17.76
Netherlands
Zaltbommel
17.31
Czech Republic
Trebic
15.16
Netherlands
Oud-Beijerland
27.27
Denmark
Ballerup
21.79
New Zealand
Lower Hutt
8.52
Denmark
Viby
16.80
New Zealand
Whangarei
7.90
Estonia
Maardu
16.25
Norway
Jessheim
15.04
Estonia
Pärnu
8.32
Norway
Øvre Årdal
17.69
Finland
Karkkila
3.18
Poland
Lubon
8.00
Finland
Halikko
12.31
Poland
Szczecin
9.91
France
Conflans-Sainte-Ho
5.16
Portugal
Mafra
13.61
France
Torcy
16.22
Portugal
Cartaxo
9.64
Germany
Oberursel
18.13
Slovakia
Komárno
9.99
Germany
Neermoor
7.56
Slovakia
Nová Dubnica
12.47
Greece
Khalkís
5.10
Slovenia
Medvode
7.35
Greece
Iráklion
5.49
Slovenia
Novo Mesto
9.71
Hong Kong
Kowloon City
16.93
Spain
Cardedeu
5.83
Hong Kong
Lam Tin
39.57
Spain
Alcalá DeHenares
17.31
Hungary
Eger
18.84
Sweden
Trelleborg
13.68
Hungary
Farmos
8.75
Sweden
Hässelby
26.19
Iceland
Akranes
20.69
Switzerland
Lutry
26.77
Iceland
Keflavík
11.85
Switzerland
Winterthur
24.85
Ireland
Clare
3.38
Turkey
Maltepe
4.23
Ireland
Galway
8.05
Turkey
Sakarya
4.47
Israel
Qiryat Gat
7.36
UK
East Molesey
13.80
Israel
Qiryat Ono
7.19
UK
Strawberry Hill
11.09

5


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 2c

Average (Weighted) Download Speeds (Mbps) (2011) of Two Cities within 100 miles of a

Server for Each US State

Download
Download
State City
Speed
State City Speed
(Mbps)
(Mbps)
Alabama Piedmont
16.68 Louisiana
Gretna
12.37
Alabama Rainsville
5.44
Louisiana
Marrero
21.68
Alaska Anchorage
4.18 Maine
Rockland
9.10
Alaska Kenai
1.69
Maine
Yarmouth
8.85
Arizona Laveen
15.90
Maryland
Salisbury
13.27
Arizona Peoria
14.89
Maryland
Walkersville
9.99
Arkansas West
Memphis
15.88
Massachusetts Raynham
15.76
California Hermosa
Beach
18.26
Massachusetts Scituate
17.02
Huntington
California
Beach 14.58 Michigan
Dearborn
11.77
Colorado Parker
15.80 Michigan
Grosse
Pointe
14.37
Colorado Windsor
13.30 Mississippi
Hernando
13.29
Connecticut Fairfield
14.16
Mississippi
Horn
Lake
15.94
Connecticut Southington
9.97
Missouri
Ozark
8.36
Delaware Milford
18.28
Missouri
Smithville
7.08
Delaware New
Castle
15.60
Montana
Billings
7.74
Florida Homestead
14.84 Montana
Missoula
6.54
Florida Orange
Park
12.31
Nebraska
Norfolk
8.45
Georgia Evans
13.97 Nebraska
Wayne
5.30
Georgia Maysville
4.87
Nevada
Henderson
10.95
Hawaii Kapolei
9.05
Nevada
Las
Vegas
9.91
Hawaii Kihei
7.76 New
Hampshire
Londonderry
16.27
Idaho
Coeur D Alene
6.91 New Hampshire
Suncook
6.33
Idaho Rathdrum
4.09
New
Jersey
Bloomfield
11.59
Illinois Burbank
14.54 New
Jersey Rockaway
15.97
Illinois Watseka
8.25
New
Mexico
Albuquerque
10.26
Indiana Brazil
8.63
New
Mexico Placitas
11.54
Indiana Demotte
9.12 New
York Bedford
18.96
Iowa
Le Mars
3.62 New York
Plainview
18.87
Iowa
Sioux Center
5.87 North Carolina
Arden
12.27
Kansas
Kansas City
6.58
North Carolina
Weaverville
11.69
Kansas
Overland Park
9.81
North Dakota
Grand Forks
20.47
Kentucky Newport
10.77
Ohio
Oak
Harbor
3.90
Kentucky
West Liberty
7.76 Ohio
West Milton
7.75


6


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 2c Continued



State City Down
Speed
Oklahoma Collinsville
4.46
Oklahoma Tulsa
10.42
Oregon Eugene
13.11
Oregon Hood
River
5.02
Pennsylvania Hollidaysburg
9.52
Pennsylvania Whitehall
2.11
Rhode Island
East Providence
16.92
Rhode Island
Lincoln
15.60
South Carolina
Greenwood
4.86
South Carolina
Taylors
11.37
South Dakota
Vermillion
15.41
South Dakota
Yankton
17.90
Tennessee Memphis
11.20
Tennessee Smyrna
13.05
Texas Corpus
Christi
9.34
Texas Princeton
2.68
Utah Brigham
City
11.82
Utah Logan
14.71
Vermont Colchester
10.48
Vermont Manchester
Center
10.84
Virginia Oakton
18.04
Virginia Spotsylvania 11.58
Washington Washougal
13.08
Washington Wenatchee
12.86
West Virginia
Chapmanville
3.56
West Virginia
Inwood
13.44
Wisconsin Baraboo
17.77
Wisconsin Sussex
11.92
Wyoming Cody
8.97









7


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334


Appendix Table 3a

Population Strata for Non-US Cities (2010-2011)

(Based on City Population and Ookla Data)


Strata
No. of Cities in Stratum
Proportion (%)

Very Small Cities

7144 57.3
Less than 25,000 inhabitants

Small Cities

1721 13.8
Greater than or equal to 25,000, but

less than 50,000 inhabitants

Medium Cities

2742 22.0
Greater than or equal to 50,000, but
less than 100,000 inhabitants

Large Cities

851 6.8
Greater than 100,000 inhabitants
Total
12, 458





Appendix Table 3b

Population Strata for US Cities (2011)

(Based on City Population and Ookla data)


Strata
No. of Cities in Stratum
Proportion

Very Small Cities

7303 30.4
Less than 25,000 inhabitants

Small Cities

8594 35.7
Greater than or equal to 25,000, but
less than 50,000 inhabitants

Medium Cities

5095 21.2
Greater than or equal to 50,000, but
less than 100,000 inhabitants

Large Cities

3072 12.8
Greater than 100,000 inhabitants
Total 24,
064





8


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Table 3c

Average (Weighted) Download Speeds by Country (2011)

(Based on Stratified Sampling)

Average Weighted
Average Weighted
Download Speed
Download Speed
Country
(Mbps)
Country
(Mbps)
Korea 34.24
Norway
11.50
Hong Kong
31.26 Spain
11.35
Sweden 27.67 France 11.27
Lithuania 25.68
Canada
10.39
Netherlands 24.44
Finland
10.26
Switzerland 21.17 Hungary
10.08
Japan 20.25
Australia
9.68
Denmark 18.82
Austria
8.94
Bulgaria 18.76
United
Kingdom
8.65
Singapore 17.12
Slovenia
8.37
Estonia 16.96 Poland
8.09
Belgium 16.59 Israel
6.55
Luxembourg 15.88 New
Zealand 6.19
Iceland 14.66 Ireland
5.50
Portugal 14.63 Greece
5.34
Germany 14.21 Italy
4.78
Czech Republic
14.04 Chile
4.52
United States
12.53
Turkey 3.13
Slovakia 12.27 Mexico
2.88



















9


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 3d

Average (Weighted) Download Speeds by US States and International Countries (2011)

(Based on Stratified Sampling)
Download
Download
Download Speed
Speed
Speed
Country
(Mbps) Country
(Mbps) Country
(Mbps)
Korea,
Republic of
34.24 Oregon
13.52
Georgia
10.28
Hong Kong
31.26 Colorado
13.48
Finland
10.26
Sweden
27.67 Florida
13.16
Hungary
10.08
Lithuania
25.68 Tennessee
13.13
Australia
9.68
Netherlands
24.44 Indiana
12.84
Mississippi
9.49
Switzerland
21.17 Pennsylvania
12.82
Nevada
9.37
Japan
20.25 Illinois
12.71
Texas
9.26
Denmark
18.82 New Jersey
12.62
Maine
9.21
Bulgaria
18.76 Connecticut
12.51
Austria
8.94
New
Singapore
17.12 Hampshire
12.36
New Mexico
8.91
Massachusetts
17.23 Kansas
12.36
United Kingdom
8.65
Estonia
16.96 Slovakia
12.27
Missouri
8.48
Delaware
16.84 Arizona
12.17
Kentucky
8.40
Belgium
16.59 Alabama
11.96
Slovenia
8.37
Rhode Island
16.31 Louisiana
11.61
Poland
8.09
Maryland
16.19 Norway
11.50
Montana
7.95
New York
15.89 Ohio
11.42
Hawaii
7.89
Luxembourg
15.88 Spain
11.35
Wyoming
7.50
South Dakota
15.73 California
11.29
Iowa
7.32
Virginia
14.86 France
11.27
Israel
6.55
North Dakota
14.77 Michigan
11.23
Idaho
6.53
Minnesota
14.68 Oklahoma
11.21
New Zealand
6.19
Iceland
14.66 Nebraska
11.14
Ireland
5.50
North
Portugal
14.63 Carolina
11.10
Greece
5.34
Germany
14.21 Vermont
10.88
Italy
4.78
South
Utah
14.10 Carolina
10.86
Chile
4.52
Czech
Republic
14.04 Canada
10.39
Alaska
3.90
Wisconsin
13.87 Arkansas
10.37
Turkey
3.13
West
Washington
13.69 Virginia
10.33
Mexico
2.88



10


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334



Appendix Table 4a

Average Download Speeds (2011) in Very Small Cities for a Country/State

(Based on Stratified Sampling)

Download
Download
Download
Speed
Speed
Speed
Country\State
(Mbps) Country\State (Mbps) Country\State
(Mbps)
Hong Kong
31.0 Czech Republic
13.5
Australia
9.8
Korea, Republic of
30.5 Oregon
13.5
Georgia
9.8
Sweden 26.4
Kansas
13.5
Finland
9.8
Netherlands 24.8
Germany 13.4 Nevada 9.5
Lithuania 24.2
Florida 13.4 Arkansas
9.1
Switzerland 20.9
Alabama 13.0 California
8.9
Denmark 19.2
Washington
12.7 Iowa 8.9
Massachusetts 18.7
Indiana
12.7 Austria
8.7
Bulgaria 18.3
Oklahoma
12.4 Hawaii
8.6
Delaware 17.9
New
Hampshire
12.3
Mississippi
8.5
Luxembourg 17.6
Tennessee 12.2
Hungary 8.5
Estonia 17.4
Louisiana
12.1 Kentucky
8.3
Japan 17.2
Spain
12.0
North
Dakota
8.2
Maryland 16.7
South
Carolina
11.9
Texas 8.2
Belgium 16.1
Connecticut
11.7
Slovenia
8.1
New York
16.0 Colorado
11.6 Missouri
8.1
South Dakota
15.8 North Carolina
11.6
Israel
6.5
Virginia 15.5
Michigan
11.5
Greece
6.0
Pennsylvania 15.3
Vermont 11.4 Wyoming
5.6
Iceland 14.6
Norway
11.2 Poland
5.5
New Jersey
14.5 Nebraska
11.1 New Zealand
5.3
Portugal 14.4
Slovakia
11.1
Chile
4.9
Minnesota 14.3
France 11.0 Ireland
4.8
Rhode Island
14.2 Ohio
11.0 Idaho
4.1
Wisconsin 13.8
Canada 10.4
Alaska 4.1
Illinois 13.8
Maine
10.3
Turkey
2.6
Utah 13.7
Montana
10.3 Mexico
2.2
Arizona 13.5
West
Virginia
9.9


Note: Very small cities are those with less than 25,000 inhabitants. These country/state average speed data are
based on city samples drawn from Stratum 1 cities, according to the population proportions dictated by the
stratified sampling approach. All countries/states may not be in this data if there are no cities in in the very small
city category for that particular country/state in 2011.



11


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334




Appendix Table 4b

Average Download Speeds (2011) in Small Cities for a Country/State

(Based on Stratified Sampling)

Download
Download
Downloa
Speed
Speed
d Speed
Country\State
(Mbps) Country\State (Mbps) Country\State
(Mbps)
Lithuania 31.8
Utah
14.1
Alabama
10.3
Sweden
30.1 Czech Republic
13.9
South Carolina
10.2
Netherlands 24.2
Connecticut
13.7
Vermont 9.9
Belgium 23.9
Tennessee
13.7
Arizona
9.8
Switzerland 23.5
Indiana 13.7
Poland
9.8
Bulgaria 19.5
Oregon
13.0
Missouri
9.5
Rhode Island
18.6 New Jersey
13.0
Spain
9.4
Massachusetts 18.3
Michigan
12.4
Finland
9.0
North Dakota
18.1 New Hampshire
12.4
Oklahoma
8.8
Germany 17.0
Louisiana
12.3
Wyoming
8.8
Delaware 17.0
California
12.3
New
Mexico
8.8
New York
16.2 Ohio
12.2
Iowa
8.4
South Dakota
15.8 Kansas
12.0
Kentucky
8.3
Maryland 15.5
Florida 12.0
Hawaii 7.2
Minnesota 15.4
Mississippi
11.3
France 6.8
Slovakia 15.2
Pennsylvania
11.2
Montana
6.2
Portugal 15.0
North
Carolina
11.1
Idaho 6.0
Iceland 14.9
Arkansas
11.1
Maine
5.9
Virginia 14.9
West
Virginia
10.9
Turkey
3.9
Washington 14.9
Illinois
10.8
Australia 3.6
Denmark 14.8
Georgia 10.5
Nevada 3.5
Colorado 14.7
Nebraska
10.3
Alaska 3.4
Hungary 14.5
Ireland 10.3
Mexico
3.4
Wisconsin 14.1
Texas 10.3
Chile
2.9
Note: Small cities are those with greater than 25,000, but less than 50,000 inhabitants. These country/state
average speed data are based on city samples drawn from Stratum 3 cities, according to the population proportions
dictated by the stratified sampling approach. All countries/states may not be in this data if there are no cities in the
small city group for that particular country/state in 2011.






12


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334






Appendix Table 4c

Average Download Speeds (2011) in Medium Cities for a Country/State

(Based on Stratified Sampling)


Download
Download
Download
Speed
Speed
Speed
Country\State
(Mbps) Country\State (Mbps) Country\State (Mbps)
Hong Kong
36.1 New Hampshire
14.5
Arkansas
10.2
Sweden 33.4
Kansas 14.3
Nevada 10.2
Netherlands 30.0
Colorado
14.3
Texas
10.1
Switzerland 26.2
Minnesota
14.2
Georgia
9.9
Japan 21.9
Nebraska
13.9
Poland 9.7
Portugal 20.9
Washington
13.7
Missouri 9.7
Bulgaria 19.7
Indiana 13.5
Michigan 9.1
North Dakota
19.1 Czech Republic
13.2
South Carolina
8.8
Hungary 17.7
Illinois
13.2
Wyoming 8.7
Maryland 17.4
Spain
12.8
New
Mexico
8.6
Rhode Island
17.1 Ohio
12.6
Idaho
8.6
New York
16.2 Arizona
12.4
United Kingdom
8.3
Germany 16.2
Connecticut
12.1
Mississippi 8.3
Slovakia 16.0
Alabama 11.9
Pennsylvania
8.3
Massachusetts 15.4
Virginia
11.8
Iowa
8.2
Utah 15.1
Finland
11.5
Montana
7.8
Oregon 15.1
North
Carolina
11.3
France
7.1
Florida 14.8
California
10.7
Kentucky 7.0
Tennessee
14.7 New Jersey
10.7
New Zealand
6.4
Delaware 14.6
Louisiana 10.4
Italy
4.8
Wisconsin 14.6
Oklahoma 10.4
Turkey
3.3
South Dakota
14.6 Maine
10.2


Note: Medium cities are those with greater than 50,000, but less than 75,000 inhabitants. These country/state
average speed data are based on city samples drawn from Stratum 3 cities, according to the population proportions
dictated by the stratified sampling approach. All countries/states may not be in this data if there are no cities in the
medium city category for that particular country/state in 2011.





13


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334



Appendix Table 4d

Average Download Speeds (2011) in Large Cities for a Country/State

(Based on Stratified Sampling)

Download
Download
Download
Speed
Speed
Speed
Country\State
(Mbps) Country\State
(Mbps) Country\State
(Mbps)
Korea, Republic of
36.0 Utah
13.3 North Dakota
10.5
Hong Kong
35.2 Finland
13.1
Kentucky
10.3
Sweden 31.8
Spain 12.7 New
Mexico
10.3
Lithuania 25.6
Oregon 12.5
Wisconsin
10.2
France 21.9
South
Carolina
12.4
Massachusetts
10.1
Hungary 21.7
Tennessee
12.4
North
Carolina
10.0
Japan 20.8
Michigan
12.4
Alabama
10.0
Czech Republic
18.8 Nebraska
12.2
Louisiana
9.9
Poland 18.4
California
12.2
Kansas
9.9
Bulgaria 18.3
New
Jersey
12.1 Ohio 9.2
South Dakota
16.7 Georgia
12.1
Canada
8.9
Virginia 16.3
Portugal
12.0
Texas
8.7
Minnesota 15.3
Oklahoma
11.9
Montana
7.7
Germany 15.1
Florida 11.8
Indiana
7.2
Denmark 14.9
Illinois 11.8
Iowa 6.7
Switzerland 14.5
Connecticut
11.5 Missouri 5.0
Norway 13.6
Pennsylvania
11.4
Chile
4.3
Washington 13.6
New
York
10.9
Alaska 4.2
Colorado
13.6 Nevada
10.7


Arizona
13.6 New Hampshire
10.7

Note: Large cities are those with greater than 100,000 inhabitants. These country/state average speed data are
based on city samples drawn from Stratum 4 cities, according to the population proportions dictated by the
stratified sampling approach. All countries/states may not be in this data if there are no cities in the large city
category for that particular country/state in 2011.


14


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334


Appendix Table 5

Shortfall Index (%) (2010 and 2011


Country 2011

2010 Country
2011 2010
Slovakia 0.41
1.12 Turkey
14.88


Israel 0.45

Netherlands
16.41
17.64
Lithuania 1.02
1.46 Spain 16.93

Hungary 1.36
3.05 Singapore
17.16


Poland 2.61

Sweden
17.76
22.04
Switzerland 3.23 3.87
Luxembourg
18.04 17.94
Slovenia 3.66


Belgium
18.16
19.17
Bulgaria 4.42
4.16 Germany
18.18
16.95
Chile 4.99

Portugal
19.21
21.13
Norway 5.06
6.07 Austria
22.27
18.57
United States
6.80
7.06
Ireland
24.03

Estonia
6.96

New Zealand
28.80

Czech Republic
6.98
6.95
Iceland
29.26

Canada
11.72
11.94 Italy 31.80

United
Denmark 11.73
12.02
32.83 39.27
Kingdom
Mexico 13.78


Australia
37.88
37.40
Hong Kong
14.13

France
40.57
41.70
Finland
14.17
14.38 Greece
55.77

Note: This measures the difference between the advertised and actual speeds based on the Promise Index data by
Ookla

15


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 6


Ookla and OECD Actual and Advertised Average Download Speeds, 2010 and 2011

Ookla

Ookla

OECD

Ookla

Ookla

OECD

Country

Actual

Advertised Advertised Country

Actual

Advertised Advertised

Korea
36.0
55.59
Hong Kong
35.1
41.0
Hong Kong
26.2

Korea
30.7

76.90
Japan
25.0
80.61
Lithuania
29.2
29.5
Sweden
24.8
31.2
85.61
Sweden
27.9
33.4
102.76
Lithuania
22.3
22.5
Netherlands
23.6
28.0
50.19
Netherlands
21.4
26.1
39.59
Japan
22.5

156.18
Switzerland
17.4
18.1
20.78
Switzerland
21.0
21.7
22.84
Bulgaria
16.2
16.8
Bulgaria
19.2
20.1
Iceland
14.6
27.05
Belgium
19.1
23.0
27.14
Germany
14.4
17.4
17.30
Denmark
18.8
21.2
36.97
Portugal
14.2
17.7
84.10
Singapore
17.3
21.0
Belgium
13.1
16.1
24.89
Iceland
15.9
22.2
21.32
Czech Rep.
12.5
13.6
26.32
Czech Rep.
14.9
16.1
24.20
United States
11.3
12.2
14.67
Estonia
14.8
15.9
38.45
Finland
10.9
12.8
30.67
Slovakia
13.7
13.7
30.23
Slovakia
10.9
11.0
48.00
Portugal
13.7
16.8
83.36
Denmark
10.5
11.9
25.77
Germany
13.3
16.4
19.17
Hungary
10.1
10.4
20.09
Norway
12.2
12.8
72.07
France
9.9
17.1
66.84
United States
11.9
12.8
29.44
Australia
9.8
15.6
32.40
Hungary
11.6
11.6
27.10
Estonia
9.7
22.80
Luxembourg
11.3
14.3
21.30
Norway
9.1
9.7
46.14
Spain
10.9
13.2
26.74
Austria
9.0
10.6
29.16
Finland
10.7
12.4
44.21
Canada
8.5
9.6
20.82
Canada
10.1
11.5
45.92
Luxembourg
8.1
9.9
13.18
Australia
9.9
16.0
35.47
Poland
7.7
23.82
France
9.7
16.1
53.22
Spain
7.7
14.51
UK
8.8
12.5
35.27
UK
7.3
12.1
26.62
Austria
8.1
10.8
18.43
Slovenia
7.1
61.77
Slovenia
8.0
8.3
79.91
Singapore
6.4

New Zealand
7.8
10.7
23.39
Greece
6.3
16.09
Poland
7.4
7.6
23.60
New Zealand
5.9
22.02
Israel
7.0
7.0
15.87
Ireland
5.6
9.64
Ireland
6.4
8.4
26.33
Israel
5.1
15.87
Greece
5.3
12.0
10.57
Chile
4.5
8.87
Chile
5.2
5.4
12.37
Italy
4.3
29.98
Turkey
4.7
5.5
36.25
Turkey
3.8
17.30
Italy
4.5
6.6
22.68
Mexico
2.0
2.98
Mexico
2.9
3.4
5.15

16


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 7a

Average (Weighted) Latency by Country (2011)



Latency

Latency

Country

(milliseconds)

Country

(milliseconds)
Korea
44.58
Germany
68.16
Bulgaria
44.92
Poland
68.21
Czech Republic
51.67
Chile
68.42
Slovakia
52.49
Ireland
68.60
Hungary
54.22
Greece
73.36
Lithuania
57.10
Australia
73.46
Portugal
60.12
United States
73.87
Belgium
60.35
Italy
74.17
Austria
60.93
Denmark
76.12
Hong Kong
61.16
Israel
78.50
Netherlands
64.54
Spain
81.89
Finland
65.81
Singapore
84.42
Turkey
66.13
Slovenia
84.95
Switzerland
67.34
France
91.04
New Zealand
67.44
Canada
92.94
Norway
67.55
Sweden
94.49
United Kingdom
68.13
Estonia
105.07

Mexico
113.84

Note: Latency (round-trip latency) measures the amount of time it takes a data packet
to travel from a source to a destination and back. It is measured as the sum of time
from the start of packet transmission by a source to the start of packet reception by a
destination plus the time that it takes for the packet to travel back from the receiving
destination to the source, and is measured in milliseconds.

















17


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 7b

Average (Weighted) Latency by US States and International Countries (2011)


Latency

Latency

Country

(milliseconds)

Country

(milliseconds)
Rhode Island
43.28
Oregon
69.71
Bulgaria
43.49
Texas
69.78
Korea, Republic of
46.28
Kansas
69.98
Czech Republic
51.84
Missouri
70.13
Slovakia
53.51
Arizona
70.68
Oklahoma
55.07
New York
72.31
Hungary
55.39
Ohio
72.84
Arkansas
56.68
Australia
72.88
Lithuania
57.58
Italy
73.15
Kentucky
57.74
Greece
73.20
Belgium
58.98
Tennessee
73.79
Indiana
59.39
Denmark
75.41
Virginia
59.88
South Carolina
77.09
Colorado
60.33
Israel
78.66
Florida
60.54
Nevada
79.48
Portugal
60.70
District of Columbia
80.25
Austria
61.13
California
80.97
Alabama
61.23
North Carolina
81.11
Hong Kong
61.84
Spain
81.69
Finland
64.57
Idaho
82.29
Washington
64.65
Nebraska
82.81
Netherlands
65.14
Singapore
85.36
Turkey
65.33
Utah
88.23
Michigan
65.49
Slovenia
88.84
Switzerland
65.57
Pennsylvania
88.95
Wisconsin
65.65
France
90.58
Chile
66.42
Sweden
90.74
United Kingdom
66.75
Canada
91.91
Germany
66.89
Maryland
97.36
Norway
67.27
Estonia
104.05
Poland
67.46
Massachusetts
104.58
New Zealand
67.87
Mexico
111.70
Illinois
68.01
Connecticut
119.53
Minnesota
68.19
Iowa
130.05
Ireland
68.63
New Hampshire
137.05
Georgia
69.56
New Jersey
172.11


18


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334




Appendix Table 8a

Average (Weighted) Jitter by Country (2011)


Jitter

Jitter

Country

(milliseconds)

Country

(milliseconds)
Korea
20.21
Netherlands
27.30
Greece
20.48
Lithuania
28.36
Bulgaria
20.62
Poland
28.89
Slovakia
21.63
United States
29.77
Austria
21.88
Finland
29.97
New Zealand
22.60
Australia
30.08
Belgium
22.86
Israel
30.18
Czech Republic
22.96
France
31.85
Italy
23.43
Sweden
33.17
Spain
23.62
Estonia
34.07
Hungary
24.79
Norway
34.20
Turkey
25.36
Switzerland
34.86
Ireland
25.88
Slovenia
35.08
Denmark
26.26
Chile
36.26
Germany
26.31
United Kingdom
39.02
Portugal
26.48
Singapore
39.42
Hong Kong
27.13
Canada
40.34

Mexico
41.06

Note: Jitter refers to the variance of latency over time, and is measured by the average deviation
from the mean latency of the network, and is measured in milliseconds.


19


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334


Appendix Table 8b

Average (Weighted) Jitter by US States and International Countries (2011)


Jitter

Jitter

Country

(milliseconds)

Country

(milliseconds)
Iowa
16.43
Kansas
27.14
Arkansas
18.69
Ohio
27.23
Alabama
19.00
Netherlands
28.07
Oklahoma
19.10
Illinois
28.09
Bulgaria
19.63
Poland
28.39
Minnesota
20.13
Finland
28.94
Korea
20.18
Lithuania
29.01
Greece
20.36
Tennessee
29.42
Slovakia
20.96
Australia
29.66
Oregon
21.00
District of Columbia
29.88
Rhode Island
21.42
Virginia
30.05
Belgium
21.66
North Carolina
30.12
Austria
21.70
Israel
30.20
Indiana
21.79
Wisconsin
30.22
Colorado
22.01
Georgia
30.77
Italy
22.75
Nevada
30.85
Missouri
22.78
New York
31.33
Czech Republic
22.83
France
31.53
Utah
23.19
Sweden
31.87
New Zealand
23.30
Switzerland
33.76
Florida
23.44
Estonia
33.87
Spain
23.77
Pennsylvania
33.95
Turkey
24.50
Norway
34.02
Hungary
25.22
Chile
34.70
Nebraska
25.44
Slovenia
34.84
Arizona
25.46
California
35.30
Germany
25.57
Maryland
35.49
Ireland
25.65
United Kingdom
36.98
Idaho
25.82
Singapore
38.40
Kentucky
25.89
Canada
39.65
Texas
25.90
Mexico
40.06
Denmark
25.92
South Carolina
40.75
Michigan
26.19
Massachusetts
42.40
Washington
26.79
Connecticut
50.10
Hong Kong
26.84
New Jersey
74.40
Portugal
26.95
New Hampshire
114.52

20


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334



Appendix Table 9a

Average (Weighted) Packet Loss by Country (2011)


Country

Packet Loss

Country

Packet Loss

Israel
1.08
Australia
3.26
Estonia
1.12
Germany
3.32
Hong Kong
1.21
United States
3.40
Korea
1.26
Czech Republic
3.46
Slovenia
1.28
United Kingdom
3.60
Lithuania
1.33
Bulgaria
3.62
Switzerland
1.38
Poland
3.64
Sweden
1.71
Portugal
3.67
Canada
1.80
New Zealand
3.91
Slovakia
1.82
Belgium
3.96
Chile
1.90
Spain
4.00
Denmark
1.97
Ireland
4.54
Netherlands
2.39
Hungary
4.84
Norway
2.44
Austria
5.01
Italy
2.63
Mexico
5.17
France
2.91
Turkey
6.15
Singapore
3.08
Finland
7.94

Greece
10.01

Note: When packets of data travelling across the network fail to reach their destination, the
phenomenon is termed packet loss. Packet loss can occur because of network congestion, signal
degradation, faulty network drivers or networking hardware, and the distance between the origin of
the transmitted data and the destination. When packet loss occurs due to these reasons, it can be used
as a quality loss metric.

21


Federal Communications Commission
DA 12-1334

Appendix Table 9b

Average (Weighted) Packet Loss by US States and International Countries (2011)


Country

Packet Loss

Country

Packet Loss

Connecticut
0.53
Maryland
2.90
Israel
1.03
France
2.90
New Jersey
1.07
Indiana
2.97
Estonia
1.12
Minnesota
2.99
Korea, Republic of
1.21
Colorado
3.00
Slovenia
1.21
Nevada
3.05
Hong Kong
1.24
New York
3.09
Lithuania
1.38
Singapore
3.14
Switzerland
1.40
Germany
3.21
Canada
1.77
Wisconsin
3.21
Nebraska
1.80
Florida
3.21
Sweden
1.81
Bulgaria
3.24
Slovakia
1.83
Australia
3.26
Iowa
1.89
United Kingdom
3.27
Rhode Island
1.90
Ohio
3.28
Chile
1.91
Massachusetts
3.29
Denmark
2.01
California
3.34
Utah
2.03
Czech Republic
3.53
Oklahoma
2.03
Poland
3.54
Arkansas
2.07
Portugal
3.55
Oregon
2.08
Georgia
3.62
District of Columbia
2.16
New Zealand
3.76
New Hampshire
2.18
Ireland
4.02
South Carolina
2.34
Idaho
4.02
Netherlands
2.39
Spain
4.07
Pennsylvania
2.39
Belgium
4.20
Norway
2.55
Texas
4.39
Washington
2.55
Hungary
4.59
Italy
2.55
Austria
4.95
Kansas
2.63
Mexico
4.95
Michigan
2.65
Missouri
5.08
Illinois
2.65
North Carolina
5.66
Tennessee
2.71
Turkey
5.97
Arizona
2.79
Alabama
6.89
Kentucky
2.82
Finland
7.92
Virginia
2.90
Greece
9.63


22

Document Outline


Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.